by Judith Curry
This paper will change the way you think about natural internal variability.
And it provides a very different view from Mora et al.’s ‘we are toast by 2047‘ paper.
Role for Eurasian Arctic shelf sea ice in a secularly varying hemispheric climate signal during the 20th century
Marcia Glaze Wyatt and Judith A. Curry
Abstract: A hypothesized low-frequency climate signal propagating across the Northern Hemisphere through a network of synchronized climate indices was identified in previous analyses of instrumental and proxy data. The tempo of signal propagation is rationalized in terms of the multidecadal component of Atlantic Ocean variability – the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. Through multivariate statistical analysis of an expanded database, we further investigate this hypothesized signal to elucidate propagation dynamics. The Eurasian Arctic Shelf-Sea Region, where sea ice is uniquely exposed to open ocean in the Northern Hemisphere, emerges as a strong contender for generating and sustaining propagation of the hemispheric signal. Ocean-ice-atmosphere coupling spawns a sequence of positive and negative feedbacks that convey persistence and quasi-oscillatory features to the signal. Further stabilizing the system are anomalies of co-varying Pacific-centered atmospheric circulations. Indirectly related to dynamics in the Eurasian Arctic, these anomalies appear to negatively feed back onto the Atlantic‘s freshwater balance. Earth’s rotational rate and other proxies encode traces of this signal as it makes its way across the Northern Hemisphere.
Citation: M.G. Wyatt and J.A. Curry, “Role for Eurasian Arctic shelf sea ice in a secularly varying hemispheric climate signal during the 20th century,” (Climate Dynamics, 2013). The full manuscript can be downloaded here [ stadium wave].
Below is the complete press release being issued by Georgia Tech:
‘Stadium Waves’ Could Explain Lull In Global Warming
One of the most controversial issues emerging from the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) is the failure of global climate models to predict a hiatus in warming of global surface temperatures since 1998. Several ideas have been put forward to explain this hiatus, including what the IPCC refers to as ‘unpredictable climate variability’ that is associated with large-scale circulation regimes in the atmosphere and ocean. The most familiar of these regimes is El Niño/La Niña. On longer multi-decadal time scales, there is a network of atmospheric and oceanic circulation regimes, including the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
A new paper published in the journal Climate Dynamics suggests that this ‘unpredictable climate variability’ behaves in a more predictable way than previously assumed. The paper’s authors, Marcia Wyatt and Judith Curry, point to the so-called ‘stadium-wave’ signal that propagates like the cheer at sporting events whereby sections of sports fans seated in a stadium stand and sit as a ‘wave’ propagates through the audience. In like manner, the ‘stadium wave’ climate signal propagates across the Northern Hemisphere through a network of ocean, ice, and atmospheric circulation regimes that self-organize into a collective tempo.
The stadium wave hypothesis provides a plausible explanation for the hiatus in warming and helps explain why climate models did not predict this hiatus. Further, the new hypothesis suggests how long the hiatus might last.
Building upon Wyatt’s Ph.D. thesis at the University of Colorado, Wyatt and Curry identified two key ingredients to the propagation and maintenance of this stadium wave signal: the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and sea ice extent in the Eurasian Arctic shelf seas. The AMO sets the signal’s tempo, while the sea ice bridges communication between ocean and atmosphere. The oscillatory nature of the signal can be thought of in terms of ‘braking,’ whereby positive and negative feedbacks interact in such a way as to support reversals of the circulation regimes. As a result, climate regimes — multiple-decade intervals of warming or cooling — evolve in a spatially and temporally ordered manner. While not strictly periodic in occurrence, their repetition is regular — the order of quasi-oscillatory events remains consistent. Wyatt’s thesis found that the stadium wave signal has existed for at least 300 years.
The new study analyzed indices derived from atmospheric, oceanic and sea ice data since 1900. The linear trend was removed from all indices to focus only the multi-decadal component of natural variability. A multivariate statistical technique called Multi-channel Singular Spectrum Analysis (MSSA) was used to identify patterns of variability shared by all indices analyzed, which characterizes the ‘stadium wave.’ The removal of the long-term trend from the data effectively removes the response from long term climate forcing such as anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
The stadium wave periodically enhances or dampens the trend of long-term rising temperatures, which may explain the recent hiatus in rising global surface temperatures.
“The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s,” Wyatt said, the paper’s lead author.
Curry added, “This prediction is in contrast to the recently released IPCC AR5 Report that projects an imminent resumption of the warming, likely to be in the range of a 0.3 to 0.7 degree Celsius rise in global mean surface temperature from 2016 to 2035.” Curry is the chair of the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
Previous work done by Wyatt on the ‘wave’ shows that climate models fail to capture the stadium-wave signal. That this signal is not seen in climate model simulations may partially explain the models’ inability to simulate the current stagnation in global surface temperatures.
“Current climate models are overly damped and deterministic, focusing on the impacts of external forcing rather than simulating the natural internal variability associated with nonlinear interactions of the coupled atmosphere-ocean system,” Curry said.
The study also provides an explanation for seemingly incongruous climate trends, such as how sea ice can continue to decline during this period of stalled warming, and when the sea ice decline might reverse. After temperatures peaked in the late 1990s, hemispheric surface temperatures began to decrease, while the high latitudes of the North Atlantic Ocean continued to warm and Arctic sea ice extent continued to decline. According to the ‘stadium wave’ hypothesis, these trends mark a transition period whereby the future decades will see the North Atlantic Ocean begin to cool and sea ice in the Eurasian Arctic region begin to rebound.
Most interpretations of the recent decline in Arctic sea ice extent have focused on the role of anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing, with some allowance for natural variability. Declining sea ice extent over the last decade is consistent with the stadium wave signal, and the wave’s continued evolution portends a reversal of this trend of declining sea ice.
“The stadium wave forecasts that sea ice will recover from its recent minimum, first in the West Eurasian Arctic, followed by recovery in the Siberian Arctic,” Wyatt said. “Hence, the sea ice minimum observed in 2012, followed by an increase of sea ice in 2013, is suggestive of consistency with the timing of evolution of the stadium-wave signal.”
The stadium wave holds promise in putting into perspective numerous observations of climate behavior, such as regional patterns of decadal variability in drought and hurricane activity, the researchers say, but a complete understanding of past climate variability and projections of future climate change requires integrating the stadium-wave signal with external climate forcing from the sun, volcanoes and anthropogenic forcing.
“How external forcing projects onto the stadium wave, and whether it influences signal tempo or affects timing or magnitude of regime shifts, is unknown and requires further investigation,” Wyatt said. “While the results of this study appear to have implications regarding the hiatus in warming, the stadium wave signal does not support or refute anthropogenic global warming. The stadium wave hypothesis seeks to explain the natural multi-decadal component of climate variability.”
———-
We have also simplified an annotated one of the main figures in the paper for the public:
Illustration of the progression of the stadium wave. The stadium-wave ‘wheel’ is divided into segments (from center to perimeter): the light gray ring identifies the segment number; the dark gray ring indicates key hemispheric indices; sea ice indices are in the yellow ring; and the outer green ring provides peak dates for the segment. Segment I begins with a cold North Atlantic (-AMO), maximum sea ice extent in the European Arctic shelf seas (+WIE). Segments II through IV show evolution of the climate signal initiated in the cold Atlantic. As sea ice growth increases eastward into the Siberian Arctic (+ArcSib), strong winds develop that convert an initially cold ocean-ice signal into a warming atmospheric one (Segment II). Events proceed, carrying the signal across Eurasia and into the Pacific (+PDO; Segment III), ultimately culminating in maximum Arctic and NH surface temperatures in Segment IV. Segment –I follows with maximum warmth in the North Atlantic and minimal sea ice in the European Arctic shelf seas. This marks a shift whereby trends of AMO and WIE decrease and increase, respectively. An initial warm signal converts to a cooling one until reaching Segment –IV, where temperatures dip to their minima, followed soon after by shift to a warming regime (I). (adapted from Wyatt and Curry, 2013).
Well done!
As a modeling approach to improve climate simulations we will know more if we can show improved skill of climate models in reproducing known past climate.
I am afraid I must discount any conclusions this paper comes to as it is co-authored by suspected denialist Judith Curry. I will not actually read it before discounting it, and I will now quote old discredited papers by James Hansen and Michael Mann as my reasons for doing so. Finally, I will link to politicized IPCC conclusions.
You denialists, won’t you ever learn?
****
Without having perused this thread, I am merely predicting the actions of FOMTrolling – now let’s see how close to the truth I am.
LOL … let’s you and I (and the great majority of Climate Etc folks) unite in public repudiation of abusive language and willful ignorance!
That would be a *terrific* expression of solidarity, eh tomdesabla?
“LOL … let’s you and I (and the great majority of Climate Etc folks) unite in public repudiation of abusive language and willful ignorance.
Dear Fan, I know you’re well intended, but perhaps you could look to your own house WRT abusive language.
I find the timing of this blog most interesting, particularly:
“One of the most controversial issues emerging from the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) is the failure of global climate models to predict a hiatus in warming of global surface temperatures since 1998.” Which conveniently ignores Science News’ Oct. 5th article: Global warming hiatus tied to cooler temps in Pacific, which states “The recent pause in global warming has resulted from cooling in the tropical Pacific Ocean, new simulations find. “
FOMD : let’s you and I (and the great majority of Climate Etc folks) unite in public repudiation of abusive language and willful ignorance!
The most noble suicide note I’ve ever seen.
I agree, Congratulations!
Judith, congrats if you have made headway in understanding internal variability, but if my skimming is on target, this paper specifically ignores external forcing effects (and hence the long-term CO2 induced trends). Eg (from Georgia Tech blurb): “The linear trend was removed from all indices to focus only the multi-decadal component of natural variability.”
So this paper is neither for nor against AGW. I don’t know why so many denier/skeptic sites are selling it as against AGW.
Actually let me ask an actual question.
Do you think the rate of the wave is based on thermal input from the sun over time?
We did some analyses related to solar, but depending on which data set we used, got different answer. Subject of future research.
My theory is that a cycle like you described evolves as a nautral temperature regulation system. I’m looking forward to your research.
Dr. Curry congratulations to both you and Dr. Wyatt.
Nice to see brave and intelligent people take the path seldom taken and lead. I imagine you have set some hair on fire in many climatology departments around the world.
Very happy for you!!!
Those analyses were based on assumptions that are not consistent with hard-constrained observations.
The foundation was way too small and really wouldn’t have supported a small shack so the entire building project was scrapped. HOWEVER, I would like to have an in-depth and intelligent argument that the wood trim on the North-South hallway on the East side of the building’s 82nd floor should have been painted a lighter shade of ivory.
The original theory that all of this was based on, the model that CO2 produced a greenhouse effect, was wrong from the start. Why not address this first instead of wasting brain power on articles that assume it was correct?
Congrats Dr. C. 2030’s. Not an IPCC friendly number..
Press release: “Stadium Waves’ Could Explain Lull In Global Warming”
Right. “Could.” And yet I note DR. Wyatt’s statement: “While the results of this study appear to have implications regarding the hiatus in warming, the stadium wave signal does not support or refute anthropogenic global warming.”
Of course it doesn’t. But it may help determining how strong it really is.
Now imagine a climate system consisting of a large network of such interacting factors, with various delays, interactions, and teleconnections.
AK
Good comment, but lets add the words; ‘ large network, of such interacting factors many UNKNOWN as yet….’..
I suspect the ultimate effect of all these component parts on the climate would be akin to the sounds of a 40 piece music harmony group. As yet only two are singing and until the rest join in at various stages we won’t know the full effect, but the whole will certainly sound very different to the two.
tonyb
@tonyb…
As yet we can only hear two singing. An important distinction, between what’s really going on and our models of what’s really going on, mental and otherwise.
reminds of Syun Akasofu’s work, doesn’t it? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/09/syun-akasofus-work-provokes-journal-resignation/
Not new.
See here:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/the-real-link-between-solar-energy-ocean-cycles-and-global-temperature/
“from time to time the other oceanic cycles can operate in the opposite mode to PDO/ENSO thereby offsetting it until any lag is worked through.
It logically follows that, from time to time, the other oceanic cycles can operate in conjunction with PDO/ENSO to emphasise the effect on the global temperature.
Before it is safe to attribute a global warming or a global cooling effect to any other factor (CO2 in particular) it is necessary to disentangle the simultaneous overlapping positive and negative effects of solar variation, PDO/ENSO and the other oceanic cycles. Sometimes they work in unison, sometimes they work against each other and until a formula has been developed to work in a majority of situations all our guesses about climate change must come to nought.
So, to be able to monitor and predict changes in global temperature we need more than information about the past, current and expected future level of solar activity.
We also need to identify all the separate oceanic cycles around the globe and ascertain both the current state of their respective warming or cooling modes and, moreover, the intensity of each, both at the time of measurement and in the future.
Once we have a suitable formula I believe that changes in global temperature will no longer be a confusing phenomenon and we will be able to apportion the proper weight to other influencing factors such as the greenhouse effect of CO2.”
May 21, 2008
The contributions of sea ice, volcanic events and any anthropogenic component are all subsumed into the interaction between the ocean oscillations in each basin so the ‘stadium wave’ concept is just a fancy name for the net interaction between the various oceanic oscillations.
Except the stadium wave is a specific model, hence new. That someone previously said I bet there are a bunch of overlapping cycles does not make this paper not new.
How is a stadium wave different from what I described ?
The model may be new but the concept is not. Did anyone else describe the concept before 2008 ?
Their paper is like a new design of bicycle. They didn’t invent the wheel.
By the same token the people who invented the wheel did not invent the bicycle. In the wave case it is the different between a vague concept and a specific formulation.
You should note that having identified the concept I recommended attempts at measurement and modelling.
Anyway,this is just what we all know as the PDO is it not ?
What extra knowledge is derived from calling it a stadium wave ?
Categorising it as such might help in making a model that is amenable to prediction but we already knew it was 30 years warm and 30 years cool didn’t we ?
The PDO positive phase warmed the world in the late 20th century.
The negative phase cooled it in the mid 20th century and has caused the ‘pause’ thus far with potential cooling to follow.
This paper does not deserve the levels of positive response being given to it though I suppose it is understandable from those who were unaware of the climate significance of that 60 year oceanic oscillation.
actually Nostradamus beat you to it
When the fish that travels over both land and sea
is cast up on to the shore by a great wave,
its shape foreign, smooth and frightful.
From the sea the enemies soon reach the walls.
how is that any different from you have described?
Cool!
never forget that Wilde is a lawyer and is trained to lie, mislead, reframe, and suggest that some other culprit other than C02 commits the crime.
Isn’t Mosher a nice fellow ?
The more he dislikes what he hears the nicer he gets.
Damn near choked reading Mosher complaining about others who “mislead and reframe”.
The degree of one’s obscurantism is highly dependent on the initial conditions of one’s integrity and humility.
Because Nostradamus was describing an amphibious attack craft you Nostradumass!!
Be nice!!
Whereas others are self-taught?
What drives the AMO do you suppose?
Vellinga and Wu from the Hadley Centre modeled a 60-year cycle based on changes in the MOC. This occurred as the inter-tropical convergence zone (ITCZ) moved north as a result of a higher temperature gradient (some 0.5°C) caused by a stronger THC. The extra tropical rainfall into the Atlantic reduced the salinity and were slowly propagated north over a period of decades. The lower salinity water slowed the MOC, and the oscillation then enters the opposite phase.
Low-Latitude Freshwater Influence on Centennial Variability of the Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/3219.1
Neptune
I think it’s mostly solar and maybe coupled with some kind of internal variability. Orbital and lunar correlations are also very interesting.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GKNFRyHt-6Q/T3QRqFm-KpI/AAAAAAAAAHE/_Ojic7Iws6o/s1600/Solarcycle_forcing_temp_comparison.jpg
The late 20th century divergence is partly due to local anthropogenic warming and partly to other factors, such as longterm multicentennial linear trend in solar cycle frequency (thermal inertia of oceans and ice).
The identification of the link between these features as part of “natural variability” is fascinating.
Do you have any idea about the mechanisms that drive the stadium wave, or is this work purely a description of the spatio-temporal relationship between different effects (important though this is?)
Well that is the big question. Conceivable that this is linked to some sort of external forcing, e.g. solar sets the tempo in some way. An alternative view is that this is pure internal variability, whose character could change any time.
I have suggested the following:
i) The basic ENSO cycle is a result of the mean position of the ITCZ being north of the equator. The solar input is therefore unbalanced on either side of the equator and ocean heat builds up to the south of it resulting in periodical discharges along and across the equator in the ‘sloshing’ movement described by Bob Tisdale. Influences such as winds and the moon have some influence on the timing.
ii) The 60 year PDO Oscillation appears to be internal to the ocean system as the initial ENSO effects carry into the other ocean basins and then feed back to the Pacific by way of what you call a stadium wave but which I previously called he net interaction between the various ocean oscillations.
iii) The periodicity from MWP to LIA to date is probably induced by the solar millennial cycle as described by me elsewhere. Basically an active sun reduces global cloudiness to allow more solar energy into the oceans which skews ENSO in favour of stronger El Ninos relative to La Ninas. A quiet sun does the opposite.
So, as you suggest, a combination of external solar forcing and internal variability.
The specifics are seemingly tied explicitly to geography; i.e., how the continents are currently arranged, the shape of the Arctic Basin, etc. I wonder if the particulars of the Wave could be derived from a more general theory, which would treat the current geography as a set of values of an independent variable array.
It is a step-wise cycle where occupancy of a site disfavors occupancy of a previous site and promotes occupancy of the next site; it is global Othello or the ATP, ADP+Pi and open sites on ATP-synthase
See the Boyer cycle
http://employees.csbsju.edu/hjakubowski/classes/ch331/oxphos/atpaseboyerr.GIF
laws of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum = hard constraints (nowhere to hide)
Simply to say that the “internal variability” reminds me the convective movements in the mantle, which make continents move, separate themselves, come together again, in a sort of very, very long cycles. It requires a different sort of modelling comparing with the deterministic ones that are being used by IPCC.
I don’t know what the mystery is; what drives this is just the 61-year solar barycenter motion.
1000frolly from YouTube
The existence of such phenomena, along with the fact that all climate models appear to fail so reproduce them, is very good evidence that the entire selection of climate models sample only a tiny fraction of the space of earth-system emulations available. IOW, the models are bunk.
If it holds up, it looks really spectacular. Congrats.
I wonder if what is described is just one of the “fractals” or cycles in a multi fractual system. Similar to Chaos Theory or even Elliott Wave Theory. Do you find fibannaci relationships and ratios in the waves or cycles?
Fibonacci
I see fibonacci relationships right off the bat in the Expanded Stadium Wave (Fig. 3). Although it is hard to see exactly what the years are. Also fibonacci needs to be calculated in natural years with months measured in moons of 29.5 days for a month approximately. Anyway Waves I, II, III, IV peak consecutively somewhere between 1915 and 1936. In normal years it would have to be the fibo 21years in natural years (Fn 75025) 273.91 moons or 22.1 years. Then the Stadium Waves bottom out consecutively between 1940 and 1974. Normal years has fibonacci 34 normal years in natural years (that is the next number in the sequence after 21) but in natural years (Fn 196418) 443.19 moons or 35.8 years and that skips 28.2 in the sequence. Then once again the Stadium waves Peak consecutively between 1974 and 1996. So it looks like the peaks are 21 and the valleys are 34. It looks like the next valley started in 1996? So that takes us to 2030.
So 21 and 34 it is!
P.S. Please don’t tell David Appell about this hocus pocus unscientific bs it will forever taint the Stadium Waves and make Dr. Curry and Dr. Wyatt into diving rod laughingstock.
That is (21 and 34) BTW the perfect pi relationship of .382 to .618 that is the essence of fibonacci of adding the two previous numbers to get the next number. That appears everywhere in nature:
https://www.google.com/search?q=fibonacci&client=firefox-a&hs=UuC&rls=com.floodgap:en-US:unofficial&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=n5dXUoz2OIqqigLJ74HoDg&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1126&bih=603&dpr=1
This looks extremely interesting Judith. Thanks for linking the free version!
I will be most interested to read this (several times through) and then also to see what other PhD level experts give as feedback. Who were your reviewers on this?
One additional question- what would make your “stadium wave” hypothesis falsifiable?
observations over the next three decades
More important, what would falsify anthro induced catastrophic climate change?
“observations over the next three decades”
not necessarily — that answer is based on an assumption…
The reviewers were anonymous. One reviewer was particularly industrious writing 10+ page reviews (during 3 rounds of reviews). I think the editor did a good job of handling the paper.
did any of them count averbs?
Adverbs, even. Very industriously, undoubtedly.
Averbs are important to science.
Steve, I count self-citations and investigate of they are above 30%.
Very good remembering Klyashtorin and Lyubushin. The only ones who had any predictive skills, and forgotten by everybody.
KL was a big key in unraveling this
When I first encountered it, it became a kind of touchstone. Anything which didn’t align with KL looked “fishy”.
Cyclic Climate Changes and Fish Productivity
http://alexeylyubushin.narod.ru/Climate_Changes_and_Fish_Productivity.pdf?
Dr. Curry — It would be interesting to hear about the process of generating the press release. How did the authors interact with the press office in writing and revising the document. How many revisions? Etc.
Good question. MW did a draft, then I did a draft. We then sent this to GT press office. They did a draft, which MW in particular did not like. I redid the PR, with some edits from MW, which was pretty much the final version used in the press release.
These are challenging to write; needs to be interesting, understandable, yet accurate and not misleading. I hope we succeeded in making this an effective press release.
‘Stadium Waves’ Could Explain Lull In Global Warming
I think the biased reader of an alarmist/warmist persuasion will interpret that to mean AGW is assumed. That said, I believe it’s a fair and reasonable header…
That PR is far more technical than usual. It must have popped journalistic skulls around the world.
Did you send a press release to the Washington Post and NYT Dr Curry. It would be nice to see this up in lights like the Mora paper.
Perhaps they may post something tomorrow then.
I am at a loss as to why The Washington Post does not have this up by now. Perhaps you needed a catchier title.
I am skeptical. It is not hard to argue that the phenomenology is far too complex to be so repeatably cyclic, especially under perturbed radiative forcing.
The physics being dubious and the graphs (to the extent I can read them – the figures seem somewhat garbled in the PDF as rendered on my machine) being altogether too pretty, I suspect a statistical artifact. (Perhaps Mr McIntyre will cast his eagle eye and his caustic wit on these results. Or not.)
I could be wrong, though. However, assuming it all holds up, I see a “convenient” (i.e., consensus-bashing) misinterpretation brewing here.
Clearly, as Wyatt says, the result is uninformative regarding AGW; the trend is removed before the analysis even starts, (line 215 of the draft) so it really tells us nothing about that trend. To the contrary, it allows attribution of a prolonged hiatus to internal system variability, superimposed upon and obscuring a background trend.
Indeed, this seems the most likely implication of the result, if it holds up. If valid, it indicates that the mean surface temperature trend hiatus in no way refutes the core conclusions of IPCC, and will not have the power to do so even if it continues for some decades to come.
This is not a cycle in terms of a regular period. It is an oscillation. At most we are projecting forward 30 years.
The paper is about natural internal variability, it says absolutely nothing about AGW. The IPCC treats natural internal variability as ‘noise’; we argue that it is the fundamental climate signal on decadal to century time scales, with external forcing projecting onto these modes. Our paper does make a projection about the duration of the current pause, which does have implications for attribution, sensitivity, etc. And certainly makes one think twice about the Mora et al. we are toast in 2047
Judith said:
“it says absolutely nothing about AGW…”
—-
Then what was the “anthropogenic footprint” that was filtered from the data beginning in the 1930’s?
I am not saying Mora holds up in the event of previously unidentified quasiperiodic phenomena such as the one you propose.
I agree that it is in the class of impacts paper that tends to take the models a bit too literally. As for the “duration of the pause”, I didn’t see any attempt to link your oscillation to a temperature amplitude.
At this point, even without the Stadium Wave the GMST hiatus stands as over-explained. We have 1) ENSO masking (possibly related to) 2) heat accumulation in intermediate ocean depths 3) weak solar forcing and 4) volcanoes. If all five of these things hold up, we’d need a heck of a background signal to just hold T steady. Further, most of them are temporary, and none are in the GCMs, so that would mean the models are underpredicting warming, not overpredicting it.
Which means that while (I agree) Mora et al was overprecise regarding dates, it would be understating impacts.
Dr. Curry, technically I think you are only looking on the multi-decadal scale not the century scale. The century long trend that you removed might well be due to century scale oscillations. This is why your analysis is neutral with respect to AGW.
Mtobis: When there are five or six competing hypotheses it is unlikely that all are true. What is far more likely is that we do not know what happened. So concluding that warming is worse than we thought solely on the basis of there being multiple hypotheses is unwarranted, to say the least.
Yes.
The Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation of 60 years or so with the millennial solar cycle superimposed giving stepwise warming on each successive positive phase from LIA to date and probably the opposite from MWP to LIA.
It is the fact that we just entered a 30 year cooling phase (even without the contribution of a less active sun) which demolishes Mora et al.
“At this point, even without the Stadium Wave the GMST hiatus stands as over-explained. ”
have you ever noticed that there are many many kinds of wine cork pullers?
wonder why such a simple problem has so many tools to solve it?
err, cause none of them works perfectly.
Changing the paradigm. You’re at Ga. Tech! YOU CAN DO THAT!
The ENSO cycle HAS leaned to the cool phase. The extra volcanic activity DOES exist. The sun HAS been quiet. People confidently tell me the deep ocean heat HAS been detected (I am not 100% convinced but I am not betting against them either). And I forgot to mention that the aerosol load from Chinese industry and transportation HAS increased. So stadium wave or no, these cooling forcings, unpredictable by models, have occurred. (Much as we may wish that ENSO were predictable, so far it isn’t, so for GCM projections on current knowledge it is best treated as a roll of the dice.)
Those aren’t hypotheses, they are observed forcings. Observations. Of things that ought to cause cooling. And yet the climate stubbornly refuses to cool off.
ENSO alone accounts for most of the variance from the trend.
It seems to me the wrong side of this argument is being asked to do the explaining.
You are too modest. The power of The Wave will sweep away the sandcastles of the IPCC.
The Figure 5 states that NINO3.4 contributes about 1% to the stadium wave effect.
Yet, it is very obvious that the SOI time series contributes the most to global temperature variability, along with volcanic activity. The SOI has the opposite sign of NINO SST.
So what really needs to be done is redo all this work with those corrections added. You will have a much cleaner signal with which to reason with. And the oscillation may disappear as well.
Just saying. The tell is that there are no references to Foster&Rahmstorf or Kosaka&Xie.
That’s what happens with a paper in the pipeline in that it misses the latest findings.
I thought that recent research had significantly decreased the plausible impact of aerosols, removing that from the list of model savers.
“with external forcing projecting onto these modes”
needs conceptual revision — i’m willing and able to help marcia…
mtobis said:
Can’t argue with this as a measure as simple as SOI is able to account for the majority of the sub-decadal wiggles in the global temperature curve such as GISS. The rest are adequately explained by volcanic eroptions and a slight amount by TSI sun-spot cycles.
The wild card is to account for the minor 0.1 C slower fluctuation in the GISS curve. The stadium wave post mentions the LOD measure as a proxy for these decadal fluctuations, and I think that there may be something to it. It is a perfect component to use because it doesn’t have the temperature dependence “baked in” from detrending a signal, which is a problem with AMO based on SST measurements.
After incorporating corrections due to SOI, volcanos, TSI, and LOD, we get this:
http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/6837/vlq.gif
This looks highly de-fluctuated, except for one warming spike that lasts the duration of WWII and then drops back. This happened in the midst of the lengthy 1939-1942 El Nino which the SOI spike centered at 1941-1942 was not wide enough to compensate for.
Global interannual does not exactly equal SOI. Calling global interannual variations “ENSO” is not strictly technically accurate; it’s just a communicatively-practical colloquial conceptual approximation. Break the interannual down by region to learn something important ~1910-1940. Look for mirage correlations that indicate a balanced multi-axial differential. “ENSO” is just a loud primarily-east-west bounce around a quiet equator-pole externally-governed attractor that only shows it’s cumulative dominance at MD timescale. I suggest reporting the partial variance breakdown — i.e. with global interannual removed before partitioning. If you’re ready to get serious, I’ll put aside past transgressions on a trial basis (i.e. without yet disarming). MD LOD is a function of solar cycle acceleration. Be careful to avoid SOI overfitting, which is a hazard of naively-ignorant decomposition due to the mirage coupling, which gives rise to occasional harsh interannual failures (literally 180 degrees out of phase = straight-up diagnostic HARD-FAIL revealing patently false model assumptions and associated misconception that needs to be promptly discarded).
Huh? Citations?
You have to appreciate this Vaughan character.
Lots of sound and fury to account for a +/- 0.05C fluctuation.
There’s something seriously wrong with that number — e.g. maybe it’s based on air temperature rather than SST.
When I began university-based paid work on MD variability in late November 2007, no one from the climate establishment could answer my questions. I decided to take personal responsibility. That has been my focus all along, something I continued on the side after I moved to the private sector. Late 2010 marked a sharp turning point in my awareness of what was going wrong with solar-terrestrial-climate conception in mainstream academia. The centennial timescale partitioning cannot be sensibly addressed without deeply lucid prerequisite understanding of STW & MD by all parties involved.
Knowledge is a beautiful thing. It’s what people do with knowledge that is ugly.
Maybe is a first step in getting the “carbon-phobic” climatology aside, and advance the understanding. After 30 years. Who cares what it says or doesn’t say about the “carbon-phobia”? The question is what it says about the climate system, and if it works.
This is funny. How do you define “carbon-phobic” climatology?How do you distinguish it from “non-carbon-phobic” climatology? Can you explain more on that? I never found such a definition when studying for my degree in AtSci. Please, tell us a little more about such a deep thought…
Dr. Tobis, I don’t understand enough of the details here, but might not there be implications on calculating the CO2 TCS? if a lot of what was happening 1970-2000 was the heat “sloshing” into the surface temperature phase, and in the periods before and after, sloshing somewhere else. Not that I know which way it would affect the estimates.
I’m also interested in how this might affect all the second half of the IPCC’s work, how AGW affects climate and ecology and stuff. Seems like this would be a game-changer, leading to very different expectations on what will result. Again, I don’t know which effects would disappear, which appear or become much more severe, which change around… Perhaps that massive half of the report could be totally obsolete and have to be entirely redone to get useful information.
Anyhow, if this work implies another couple of decades to the “pause”, I think that would indeed have massive implications to both the economics and the politics. If it would turn out that real negative consequences are far down the road, more economists might agree with Bjorn Lomborg and such that it’s much more effective to gather and distribute wealth now and pay for adaptation later.
Early days, though; we’ll see what happens with this. In the meantime, I think it’s fascinating. If it works out.
Judith,
You state that indices have been detrended using least square fits to determine the linear trends. That sounds reasonable and may well be the best choice in practice, but that brings in a possible problem. If the trends are mainly due to CO2 based AGW they are not likely to be linear over the period considered. That would lead to spurious variability with extreme values at both ends and at some moment in the latter half of the period. Have you tried to estimate, how this kind on non-linearity would affect the results?
One way of testing, how strong the effect could be would be to fit a quadratic trend with a zero derivative at the beginning of the period and comparing the results obtained through that approach to the present ones.
I agree that the long term pattern is nearer quadratic than linear, though I dislike ‘detrending’ generally.
In fact if you objectively fit a quadratic is will zero out around 1910 and fit the negative trend to late 19th c. quite nicely.
Starting from an a priori assumption that the long term variation is primarily due to CO2 and imposing a suitable function is to bias the result before you start.
If the aim is to remove longer term variation that can be done without prejudice by high-pass filters. A convenient one is dT/dt. Or d2/dt2 if you want a stronger one.
The latter would effectively reduce a quadratic to a constant but avoids imposing a model on the data from the outset and setting arbitrary boundary conditions like a zero slope at the beginning of the record.
Derivatives have the advantage of being linear operations that preserve the information content of the data without introducing spurious non observational functions and assumption driven adjustments into the record.
Greg,
Quadratic trend with zero initial derivative does introduce bias, but so does also the linear trend. Therefore I didn’t propose replacing the linear trend by the quadratic in detrending, but to use the comparison of the two choices as a simple sensitivity test.
With many different indices and an overall period not very long in comparison with the variability being studied it’s quite possible that filtering leads to very low statistical significance of the results. That would be an indication that the results obtained by any selected way of detrending may be biased, but doing exploratory research using simple detrending may be of interest even in such a case.
If you remove the variability via the SOI correction, the cubic will zero out before 1880.
“If the trends are mainly due to CO2 based AGW they are not likely to be linear over the period considered.”
Why ?
Over what period may this “trend” be linear ?
Please try to answer without shuffling sideways
If the warming response to CO2 is logarithmic while CO2 emissions grow approximately exponentially then you would expect a linear response. The presence of non-linear feedbacks will however mess this simple relationship up. The climate system has a whole mess of non-linear feedbacks.
Wheel in the Sky- Journey
‘Winter is here, again, Oh Lord
Haven’t been home in a year or more
I hope she holds on a little longer
Sent a letter on a long summer day
Made of silver, not of clay
Ooh I’ve been runnin’ down this dusty road
The wheel in the sky keeps on turnin’
I don’t know where I’ll be tomorrow
Wheel in the sky keeps on turnin’…”
Well, I prefer the wheel by jerry Garcia,
The wheel is turning and you can slow it down,
You can’t let go and you can’t hold on
You can’t go back and you can’t stand still,
If the thunder don’t get you then the lightning will
Q: What does a dead-head say when he runs out of pot?
A: Oh my God, what is that horrible music!
1. The best concert I ever saw was three hours of Grateful Dead at Empire Pool, Wembley, 1972. Not my favourite group, but terrific that night, and only two hours was scheduled.
2. “This Wheel’s on Fire” … remasters of The Band’s 1971 Rock of Ages concert have just been released, played it earlier today.
(sigh) the great days of rock ‘n’ roll …
The “stadium wave” is a terrific idea, and the authors are to be congratulated (especially young scientist Marcia Glaze Wyatt). Well done!
The two studies to be discussed are: Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and Northern Hemisphere’s climate variability (2012) and Role for Eurasian Arctic shelf sea ice in a secularly varying hemispheric climate signal during the 20th century (2013)
Q What’s next?
A The weakest aspect of this work is that it is statistical as contrasted with mechanistic. It is natural to wonder: Are these patterns accidental? If they are not accidental, what is the detailed mechanism of their action?
Here the advice of George E. P. Box is relevant:
Conclusion If we follow George Box’s scientific advice, then a logical, unifying, next step for “stadium wave” models is to collaborate with computational/mechanistic global climate models to answer this simple question: By appropriate adjustment of parameters, can mechanistic climate models exhibit stadium waves?
If the answer is “yes” *and* if the stadium wave continues to be observed in coming decades, then the Wyatt/Curry work will be be regarded as a seminal & enduring contribution to climate-science. That would be *terrific*! Otherwise the work risks being regarded as one more statistics-driven model, of innumerably many already published in the literature, that in the long run (for the reasons that George Box explains) have yielded little in the way of deeper climate understanding and predictive confidence. Ouch.
Congratulations and best wishes for further “stadium wave” success are extended to you both, Marcia Glaze Wyatt and Judith Curry!
Judith, can you expound on this a bit more, from your paper:
“Examination of a 140-year record of observed and modeled temperature data revealed strong correlation between the two indices until the 1930s, after which the surface temperature trend increased much more than that of ngLOD. DM removed the estimated anthropogenic footprint from the surface
average temperature to generate a ‘corrected’ temperature, one assumed to reflect only natural variability. Correlation between ngLOD and the ‘corrected’ temperature was strong.”
___
Are we to gather that the anthropogenic footprint was actually “detected” by this analysis as early as the 1930’s?
I specifically would like to know how you judged what the “estimated anthropogenic footprint” in surface average temperature was. As is so often the case in landmark discoveries (which this could well be, time will tell) that you start off looking for one thing, and find something quite different. What I’m getting at is your stadium-wave analysis was telling you that surface average temperatures should have been doing one thing in the 1930’s, yet they started to diverge from that. The assumption that seems to be made in the paper is that this divergence was the “anthropogenic footprint”. Maybe it was, and maybe it wasn’t, but how did your team decide it was? If it turns out that it was, your analysis would be the earliest detecting the anthropogenic footprint.
R.Gates –
“…your stadium-wave analysis was telling you that surface average temperatures should have been doing one thing in the 1930s, yet they started to diverge from that.”
Not sure that this is the case. Wyatt & Curry say “DM [Dickey and Marcus] removed the estimated anthropogenic footprint from the surface average temperature…”. Did Wyatt and Curry use the ‘uncorrected’ ngLOD or the ‘corrected’ data? Not clear.
Also, Wyatt and Curry say that they detrended “..to remove the centennial scale trend…”, not to remove the “estimated anthropogenic footprint”. Thus they appear to maintain an agnostic attitude regarding the cause of the trend.
Clarifications welcome.
Biddle said:
“Did Wyatt and Curry use the ‘uncorrected’ ngLOD or the ‘corrected’ data? Not clear.”
___
Right, not clear at all. And if they did, what was the basis for that corrected data? What exactly what used as the criteria to detect the “anthropogenic footprint” starting in the 1930’s? Did that footprint grow (i.e. the correction scaled) with time as anthropogenic forcing increased.
The Dickey & Marcus 2010 paper related to the ngLOD relationship with average surface temperature is interesting in itself (and this seems to be the origin of the observbed 1930’s divergence between the two):
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JCLI3500.1
Yes, but I don’t quite get the essential argument from the abstract; do you?
I have requested a copy of the full paper from Dickey.
I love much of Dickey’s work, but I have to report that there’s a serious error in the paper on LOD and global warming.
Paul V –
“…a serious error in the paper on LOD and global warming..”
Care to elaborate?
“The study also provides an explanation for seemingly incongruous climate trends, such as how sea ice can continue to decline during this period of stalled warming, and when the sea ice decline might reverse.”
I don’t see this as incongruous. If the temperature (SST?) driving melting at or just past its peak ice will still be trying to equilibrate. Typical phase lag of most response systems.
Now if we were to read ” how sea ice can continue to decline” to mean keep accelerating , well it isn’t. It’s ‘decline’ its slowing:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/09/16/on-identifying-inter-decadal-variation-in-nh-sea-ice/
The idea on incongrenuity comes from not processing the data to sufficiently remove the annual well enough to see the recent trend is easing.
A plateau will lead to ice settling a little lower than its current state. Cooling since 2005 suggest it may turn to recovery.
This is in accord with JC’s new paper.
The huge mass of arctic ice has been responding to the mexican wave since we started watching just after PDO flipped in 1975. This much does not even need a non-linear response, a simple relaxation response is enough.
However, the Tsonis idea of linked oscillators is appealing globally.
Judith
Interesting work. . For those that didn’t read beyond the acknowledgements in the paper there are numerous interesting diagrams that appear AFTER that section.
The text says the effect has existed for at least 300 years.
Several questions;
Why can you only see this effect in the last 300 years? Is this as far back as the data goes? How was it different in the 1930’s which required the AGW content to be isolated?
Can you pinpoint roughly when the stadium wave would have generated periods of cold/warmth with the resultant sea ice changes beyond the dates given in the graphic?
Can you identify the EXTENT of the historic melting in relation to say 2012?
tonyb
Tony asked:
“How was it different in the 1930′s which required the AGW content to be isolated?”
___
You picked up on exactly the same thing I did Tony. Depending on what their criteria were for isolating the “anthropogenic footprint” (their term from the paper), it could well be that they inadvertently discovered the earliest anthropogenic “signal” from the background noise of the stadium-wave.
RGates
Great minds…At least it shows we read the paper. Lets hope we get an ‘official’ response.
BTW I posted the 1257 volcano material twice but don’t know if you saw it?
If you didn’t I will post it on a different thread as I don’t want to cause diversions on this one.
tonyb
Tony,
I’m hopeful Judith will respond, but I think it will need to be carefully crafted on her part. On one hand, she can’t deny they filtered out the “anthropogenic footprint”, but on the other hand, she probably doesn’t want the focus on being that they found that signal amongst the noise way back in the 1930’s! I feel her pain in crafting a “just so” response…
Regarding the data from the 1257AD volcano. Yes, I did see it. Thank you for that post. Quite fascinating. Being an honest skeptic, I love this kind of data. Really keeps the “truths” I hold provisional…all lthe more provisional!
Rates
Yes, it will be intriguing to see her reply.
The stadium wave is an interesting idea especially as various waves starting at different times and combining sometimes into one,thereby amplifying the effect, is a reasonable analogy for why the effects could vary at times from limited to extreme.
We have the same effect with flooding in our part of the word, an extreme event is very unlikely if it just rains, but the chances Increase of something serious happening when all the elements conspire at the same time, which means a strong wind from a certain direction, an especially high tide combined with low pressure centred close by, high water in the river from days of rain. Miss all the factors by an hour or two and the tide will not be high enough to cause flooding. Similarly I suspect all the component parts of greater or lesser amounts of sea ice need to be in place, from currents to jet stream to water warmth etc
Will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
Glad you enjoyed the volcano stuff, I personally think their effect can last a season but am dubious about any more than that.
Tonyb
R Gates
Sorry, my iPad keeps changing your name to ‘rates.’
To make my life easier you wouldn’t consider changing it to that I suppose…
Tonyb
“…it could well be that they inadvertently discovered the earliest anthropogenic “signal” from the background noise of the stadium-wave.”
___
And I’m not suggesting Judith would be pleased if this turns out to be a result from this analysis!
I have not had the advantage of paying to read the whole paper , however…
Linear detrending, though ubiquitous is not without problems. As Prikka noted above the temp data is closer to quadratic. I added that the quadratic (if you don’t force it look like CO2) will bottom out around 1915 and rise back into lat 19th c.
Now if you fit a linear trend to that early down trend becomes steeper, the min moves later and you still get an excess rise in the later period.
this may give the impression of something starting in 1930.
Sorry, I have to reply without having access to the full text.
Hi Greg,
Judith gives the link to the full free version in her post above. They specifically started filetering out for the “anthropogenic footprint” (interesting they chose not to call it a fingerprint) in the 1930’s.
I’d be curious to know if this filtering was standardized on a specific size in the 1930’s filtering, or if they allowed that filtering to grow as the anthropogenic “footprint” increased in shoe size in the subsequent decades.
Have now read the paper twice, once as purchased and once as posted. Fascinating. A few initial thoughts. First a roughly 60 full cycle like Akasofu, but here in a more complex host of networked physical features rather than just a temperature curve fit. Lends more credence to his projections. Second, there are strong features of resonance in the way this stadium wave propagates. Whatever might have set it off, it will echo around until the underlying physical mechanisms dissipate. Centuries. Makes me wonder if there are not even longer scale, lower frequency resonances like RWP/MWP and their counterparts DA/LIA driven by slower ocean/ ice/ halocline cycles. I read somewhere that the deep halocline circulation is on this order of time scale. Third, the stadium wave features a much stronger lagged coupling between ocean/ice/atmosphere than I had previously appreciated, including the importance of halocline variation. Since the CMIP3 (has CMIP5 been checked?) models did not show this wave, it strongly suggests that a major deficiency in coupled AOGCMs is in these interactions on these 7-8 year phase lags, a strong direction for future model work.
Based on where the stadium wave now is, it sure looks like the pause will continue and Arctic sea ice wil come back to the point where even the IPCC will have to acknowledge model falsification.
Congratulations on some neat systems dynamics.
There should be a signature in the mud beneath the seas where there is oscillating ice cover. The layers should be different when ice covered than without ice; you could 14C age the organic matter in the layers and see if the widths in adjacent seas should be observable.
A testable hypothesis for once.
Doc, great thought. I suspect there are other tests that can be derived from this marvelous paper. Opens up whole venues for observational research.
The Wyatt/Curry Wave is the first good explanation I’ve seen for the 60-year cycle aparent in the Global Temperature records. It takes courage to publish something which is obviously at odds with the bulk of the climate science community and which can be measured in the relatively short term. I’m also glad to see that you have resisted any temptation to tie this wave to the sun or planets or whatever without clear evidence. The wave should not go unnoticed because its root cause cannot be explained.
The root cause can and has been reported.
I don’t think that this paper will prompt any job offers for the courageous Dr. Wyatt.
Too bad if that is the case…an excellent job she did and she would be great addition to any climate modelling team!
marcia’s too good for modeling
I too will respectfully disagree!
The Wyatt/Curry work requires only a quantitative mechanistic explanation to be regarded as seminal. The two articles in question have between them only three equations (all trivial, none dynamical). Collaboration with climate-modelers is the logical next step.
Q1 What is the simplest dynamical climate-model that yields stadium waves?
Q2 Can the parameters of existing large-scale dynamical climate models be adjusted to exhibit stadium waves?
Good answers to these questions would galvanize all of climate-change science; this would be a *terrific* start to any young scientists career.
Conversely, in the absence of answers to these questions, the work is destined to languish as one more purely statistical/phenomenological climate model that cannot readily be distinguished from hundreds of such climate models already in the literature.
Best wishes for continued progress are extended to Marcia Wyatt and Judith Curry!
not modeling — rather more duly careful attention to key lessons from hard-constrained earth rotation & atmospheric angular momentum records (there’s nowhere to hide from this stuff…)
Waiting for JOsh to cherry pick something he’s as usual misunderstood and use it to attack the authors’ character,,,
3,2,1…..
Excellent!!
Congrats to Dr. Curry and Dr. Wyatt!!!
I can’t wait to download and read the paper. Something to look forward to.
Judith, you say “This paper will change the way you think about natural internal variability.”. Sorry, but that’s quite wrong. For many years, Blind Freddie and I have been able to see that there’s a cyclical effect that the IPCC has ignored. http://tinyurl.com/lzktru7
Nice.
This might lead to climate models being somewhat accurate.
I would guess this is a warming mechanism, in terms of global temperature
over long periods. Or this is what happens when globally it is warming- the ocean is warming and sea levels are rising.
How long this has been occurring? Would there be this pattern through most of the Holocene. Is a pattern of warming periods [Medieval warm] and changes/weaken during cooler {LIA}?
Dr. Curry,
In the cooling phase of the stadium wave, where heat is supposed to go? Is it pushed out to space or sequestered in the deep ocean? Should the latter case hold, which part of the ocean is affected?
Perhaps it is like the case of the Baker who was electrocuted at work, during a power cut. Careful forensic investigation indicated that he had stepped on a bun and a current had run up his leg.
As ice expands it will change ice and sea currents.
Judith
I just read your and Wyatt’s paper and it is quite interesting. I am skeptical, but the conclusions seem very reasonable. It will be very interesting to see what develops over the next few years. It will also be interesting to see what the theortical impact might be to ECS if this proves to be true. It does not make AGW untrue at all, but it would appear to alter the timing and intensity of any changes that result from it.
It removes the “C” from CAGW. The climate models assign all of the late 20thC warming to CO2, bar a very small amount for the sun. Blind Freddie has long been able to see that in fact much of it was from a ~60-year cycle. I was very disappointed to see that Judith did not give Blind Freddie any credit in her paper.
Mike
I do not think the paper takes the “c” out of cAGW. It would seem to be explaining that the system operates differently than was thought. The wave would seem to impact the various other inputs into the system and might dampen some and enhance others at different points in time. It would seem to depend on how and where the different variables interact and when. This paper would seem to be a concept that may need to be incorporated into future climate models to see if observed conditions can be more accurately forecasted for specific location around the globe. That would be how we would be able to determine where this concept makes AGW more or less of a concern…and to who, where and when.
If others disagree with my summary let me know.
Rob Starkey – It takes the “C” out of CAGW because it alters the trend of the part of 20thC temperature that can be ascribed to CO2. I would like to give a proper analysis , but I leave in 2 hours’ time for a 2 week holiday. I’ll try to get it done after I get back.
Wave propagation requires energy exchange between domains. In radio: it is between electrostatic and magnetic, sound: compression and velocity/kinetic and structural it is strain and velocity/kinetic.
What is the climate energy exchange? Thermal and what?
+1
What is the climate energy exchange? Thermal and what?
Pressure ie weather systems such as Enso ,Nam and Sam, are essentially redistribution of Mass hence the accompanying teleconnections.
Dan, your other examples (electrostatic/magnetic, compression/velocity/kinetic, strain/velocity/kinetic) all involve conserved quantities. Thermal is not conserved, see here for example. Energy, sure, but not thermal.
Or was that your point?
Not sure I understand the question. Lots of energy exchanges in the climate. Potential and kinetic would be one. Thermal energy lifts water out of the ocean and puts it at higher elevations where it has potential energy which is turned into work as water flows through rivers moving sediments around and such. Same thing happens with winds and ocean currents and convective cells.
Dan makes an excellent point about the lack of physical basis for any hemispheric WAVE PROPAGATION of thermal energy such as implied by the “stadium wave.” Any physical wave should manifest a characteristic phase speed and direction. As shown by the cross-spectral results for a dozen high-latitude stations that I posted on the “Trust, but don’t verify” thread, the idea of a thermal wave circumnavigating the NH hemisphere from a Siberian Arctic source is largely inconsistent with actual measurements.
Whatever wide-ranging coherence one finds at multi-decadal frequencies is more likely the result of global-scale variations in cloud-regulated thermalization of solar irradiance and the lagged advection of heat from the tropics by winds and ocean currents.
Whoops! You’ve proposed a falsifiable hypothesis. That’s a schoolboy error in climate science.
/sarc
Interesting!
“The stadium wave periodically enhances or dampens the trend of long-term rising temperatures, which may explain the recent hiatus in rising global surface temperatures.”
So, I can’t help wondering, how might this impact the purported AGW driven warming of the 80’s and 90’s. The IPCC insists they’re 95 percent certain man is the primary cause (words to that effect). To my scientifically untrained mind, this would seem to enhance the natural variability factor as an explanation of at least a portion of the warming.
If on the one hand, it might explain the pause, doesn’t it OTH possible explain some/much of the previous warming?
Now that they failed co2 sensitivity we are to roll over and let them redefine natural variability? Create another plausible argument they are fundamentally right on co2 but explain the apparent observable failure of the basic AGW claim?
Pokerguy, I have to go down the the creek now and fetch some more water for Dr. Curry, I’ll get back to you.
Exactly. The squeeze is on.
Dr. Curry is a TEAM member and don’t forget it.
This is just what we all know as the PDO is it not ?
What extra knowledge is derived from calling it a stadium wave ?
Categorising it as such might help in making a model that is amenable to prediction but we already knew it was 30 years warm and 30 years cool didn’t we ?
The PDO positive phase warmed the world in the late 20th century.
The negative phase cooled it in the mid 20th century and has caused the ‘pause’ thus far with potential cooling to follow.
This paper does not deserve the levels of positive response being given to it though I suppose it is understandable from those who were unaware of the climate significance of that 60 year oceanic oscillation.
Judith Curry,
Stadium Waves remind me of “Rogue Waves” when in the ocean are standing waves as multiples of the regular wind driven waves.
Query: Would you expect a “Rogue Wave” in your hypothesis, and if so would it be detected?
Very neat idea. Has my head spinning.
I like your analogy those waves are huge too!
+1 The concept of a smoothed stadium wave would seem to permit intermittent spikes from external forcings.
Did the budget for this stadium wave research come from the Georgia Tech Earth Sciences account, or its cheerleading squad accounts?
And why no image credits to http://library.thinkquest.org/08aug/01606/zodiac.html ?
Let’s deconstruct the abstract:
A hypothesized low-frequency climate signal propagating across the Northern Hemisphere through a network of synchronized climate indices was identified in previous analyses of instrumental and proxy data.
A made-up random collection of imagined messages from some higher power embedded by magic in weather previously cherry-picked to fit our preconceived ideas let us contrive coincidences however loosely related until we got what we wanted.
The tempo of signal propagation is rationalized in terms of the multidecadal component of Atlantic Ocean variability – the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.
We had to massage the data a lot.
Through multivariate statistical analysis of an expanded database, we further investigate this hypothesized signal to elucidate propagation dynamics.
We really had to massage the data a lot.
The Eurasian Arctic Shelf-Sea Region, where sea ice is uniquely exposed to open ocean in the Northern Hemisphere, emerges as a strong contender for generating and sustaining propagation of the hemispheric signal.
We literally had to go to the ends of the Earth to massage the data.
Ocean-ice-atmosphere coupling spawns a sequence of positive and negative feedbacks that convey persistence and quasi-oscillatory features to the signal.
And even then, we still had to fudge a lot and reduce the strength of our claims.
Further stabilizing the system are anomalies of co-varying Pacific-centered atmospheric circulations. Indirectly related to dynamics in the Eurasian Arctic, these anomalies appear to negatively feed back onto the Atlantic‘s freshwater balance. Earth’s rotational rate and other proxies encode traces of this signal as it makes its way across the Northern Hemisphere.
Ending up with nothing that challenges or requires amendment to AGW, the IPCC, the clear and unambiguous influence of moderate volcanoes, or the vastly rationally superior views expressed by Jennifer Francis about the influence of AGW on the Jet Stream as supported by direct high quality unfiltered evidence, and through the Jet Stream on extreme weather: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY0RdXmLGdU
Typically juvenile and stupid.
Brian H | October 10, 2013 at 5:28 pm |
I wouldn’t call it typical; it’s really extraordinary, like Sokal Hoax level at least.
Falsifiable in 30 years depending on observations, maybe, but in some vague and undefined way known only to the authors?
No mechanism postulated?
No simulation on GCMs of any sort?
Three simple equations framing the entire Northern Hemisphere climate system?
What would any good skeptic ask before accepting such trumpery?
Please, please tell me this is a joke meant to find holes in the peer review system and show how gullible some people are.
Bart, please enlighten us as to what would falsify the IPCC’s findings.
k scott denison | October 10, 2013 at 7:10 pm |
Which ones in particular?
Be specific.
Explain the issues you see.
Illustrate how they fail to meet a valid requirement of falsifiability in some significant way?
Summarize the literature search you did to confirm your claims, where the author had not been so available as the principles of this paper as to handwave some vagueness about 30 decades out in the future?
Oh, and if you can, this time please restrain yourself from making crap up.
How about starting with these Bart:
Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3°C over the period 1951−2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C. The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C. Together these assessed contributions are consistent with the observed warming of approximately 0.6°C to 0.7°C over this period. {10.3}
k scott denison | October 11, 2013 at 6:03 am |
Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3°C over the period 1951−2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C. The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C. Together these assessed contributions are consistent with the observed warming of approximately 0.6°C to 0.7°C over this period. {10.3}
Well, I’d start by checking their math. If their figures didn’t add up, the IPCC claim would be falsified. Hey, guess what? The math works out.
Would be nice if Wyatt & Curry went to that much trouble for us or provided enough of their notes so we could do it ourselves, like the IPCC did.
Does that mean the mathematically robust claims can’t be further falsified? No, not at all.
You could randomly partition or supplement the input data and repeat the tests, to show the effect is not an artifact of selection. Hey, guess what? The IPCC meets this test, and Wyatt & Curry fail to do it, or fail to pass it at a significant level.
There’s limitless levels of falsifiability, and Wyatt & Curry don’t appear to be concerned with addressing any of them, while the IPCC has taken on all challengers to date successfully, or have reflected on their past errors and changed to be more accurate.
Ok, I’ll try once more. What would falsify the statement on what greenhouse gasses have contribute Bart? Because what they report is not math as you seem to imply. It is an assertion because they have not measured the effects of greenhouse gasses therefore checking their math is insufficient.
k scott denison | October 11, 2013 at 5:31 pm |
Please refer to the part about not making crap up.
If you have somehow missed the IPCC proposing its own strong tests of falsifiability, competently and stringently meeting validation and verification at the highest standard of diligence, then you’ve been very careful to read nothing off the WUWT reading list, or without the WUWT interpretive filter blinkering your perceptions.
You asked. I answered. You went into defibrilations of denial that while not periodic, is regular, for here, and intolerably disfunctional in the real world.
Through multivariate statistical analysis of an expanded database,
It is a legitimate methodology used in the literature eg Keppenne and Ghil 1993.Ghil 2002.
maksimovich | October 10, 2013 at 8:26 pm |
Here’s a typical paper from the social sciences that makes more or less apt use of multivariate analyses of datawarehouses: http://www.mii.vu.lt/informatica/pdf/INFO515.pdf
Do you see the difference?
No? Then let’s try something more germane: http://epubs.siam.org/doi/abs/10.1137/1114019
Do you get a feel for the difference between what we’re presented with, and what it takes to validate such analyses?
Does it start to dawn how far short pinwheel pie charts fall?
Bart R, are you familiar with Tsonis & Kravtsov’s earlier work with Wyatt on this? I suggest you do a sober rethink.
Paul Vaughan | October 11, 2013 at 12:11 am |
Are you familiar with Clark Stanley (http://books.google.ca/books?id=Aiw-KntGPrgC&pg=PA75&lpg=PA75&dq=hopi+indians+clark+stanley&source=bl&ots=qYqJJ_wh-E&sig=ACSXlxs6wjTuUY_3d4Rdv9-gU-s&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eKMXUoHIIvf_4AO6v4DoCg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=hopi%20indians%20clark%20stanley&f=false)?
At its bare bones, the paper is magical reasoning pretending to be logic, a claim that the whole is more than the sum of its parts, and that difference between the sum and the whole is materially real and meaningful, rather than an emergent transitory effect.
If Dr. Wyatt were claiming to have found the fractal dimensionality of the lagged Northern Hemisphere climate system, that would be absolutely awesome. Instead all she does is repeats Girma’s Curry Trick writ large.
I suggest you practice more scepticism of irrational claims.
Bart, understand figure 4 of WKT2011.
Paul Vaughan | October 11, 2013 at 6:28 pm |
Are you still pretending to understand and agree with this junk?
Wow. So does that mean you’re now endorsing the Skydragon Slayers, too?
How about Postma? Girma? Perpetual Motion? Scafetta? Astrology?
Bart, let’s leave it at that. I’ve nothing further to discuss with you today or any other day moving forward.
Bart R,
To quote Fast Eddie Felson in The Color of Money- “You’re acting like some girl who got felt up at the drive-in.”
GaryM | October 12, 2013 at 5:11 pm |
To quote Mr. Blonde in Reservoir Dogs, “You ever listen to K-Billy’s Super Sounds of the Seventies weekend? It’s my personal favorite.”
It’s the Internet. You can bark that anybody sounds like anything you want. It still doesn’t address the content of what’s been said. And if it doesn’t address the huge gaps in the paper, its gross lapses, its just plain awfulness that in no way sets it above Skydragon Slaying, who cares?
Bart
That was a really dumb comment. The paper may well lead climate scientists to understand how the system operates differently than was initially believed. It could lead to conclusions that arctic ice will stabilize for several years but then could actually start a period of greatly accelerated melting in a few decades.
You’re not being charitable, Rob.
Rob Starkey | October 11, 2013 at 11:02 am |
It could cause pigs to fly.
It certainly causes hot air to fly from Bart’s mouth.
This paper will change the way you think about natural internal variability.
Let me recommend Nonlinear Physical Oceanography by Henk Dijkstra, and papers by Ghiil Certainly, your paper adds to the knowledge. Well done.
well done, nice idea
Interesting that close to 0 of the stadium wave factor effects the NINO index.
The NINO or SOI contributes most of the variability to the global temperature record, so remove that and volcanos and what is left is the global warming and a low level long term variability.
Foster&Rahmstorf, Kosaka&Xie do this correction and come up with the global warming trend.
That’s what my money is on
Yes, take away the fluctuations and no pause is apparent. That is typical of what happens when one removes the signal from the noise.
You too, Judy, have ignored Occam’s razor and turned your eyes away from the simplest and most believable explanation of the hiatus/pause/whatever. Namely, that the greenhouse effect simply does not exist and OLR is not absorbed by that cloud of carbon dioxide on its way to outer space. We do know that there is no warming now despite the highest level of carbon dioxide in recorded history. But this is still an incomplete view of atmospheric absorption history. The current pause is not the only one or even the longest one on record. This honor belongs to an 18 year stretch of no-warming that preceded the arrival of the super El Nino of 1998. You don’t see it on temperature curves used by IPCC for the simple reason that they have covered it up by a fake warming in the eighties and nineties. I warned about this fakery in the preface to my book [1] in 2010 that you have a copy of. But nothing was done for two years. Then, suddenly last fall, GISTEMP, HadCRUT, and NCDC, all in unison, decided to stop showing this fakery and aligned their data with satellites that do not show warming. This requires trans-Atlantic coordination. It was done secretly and no explanation was offered. It is obvious that they did not want to draw attention to their past machinations whose traces they wish to erase. When you add these two no-warming segments together you get 33 green-house-free years out of the last 34. The extra year belongs to the super El Nino. With this track record, how can you possibly believe that carbon dioxide has anything to do with global warming? It is obvious that the greenhouse effect is dead and that any previous warming identified as greenhouse warming is just misidentified natural warming. You should know that the greenhouse effect has never been measured directly in the atmosphere and that the theory is based entirely on laboratory measurements on gases. This has now changed because Ferenc Miskolczi’s 2010 paper [2] is in effect also a measurement of the greenhouse effect in situ. He used NOAA weather balloon database that goes back to 1948 to study the absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere over time. And discovered that absorption had been constant for 61 years while at the same time carbon dioxide went up by 21.6 percent. This means that the addition of this substantial amount of CO2 to air had no effect whatsoever on the absorption of IR by the atmosphere. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed. He had predicted this outcome [3] in 2007 but was shouted down in the blogosphere. This has consequences. First and foremost it cuts the legs right out from under the claim that anthropogenic greenhouse warming even exists. All doomsday warming predictions based on the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide likewise are invalid. And any emission control laws and regulations passed with the aid of such predictions were passed under false premises and must be voided. Furthermore, IPCC was originally set up to monitor human influence on the climate. Since we can now say that there is none they have nothing more to do and should be disbanded..
References:
[1] Arno Arrak, “What Warming? Satellite view of global temperature change” (CreateSpace 2010)
[2] Ferenc M. Miskolczi, “The stable stationary value of the Earth’s global average atmospheric greenhouse-gas optical thickness” E&E 21(4):243-262 (2010)
[3] Ferenc M. Miskolczi, “Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres” Quarterly Journal of Hungarian Meteorological Service 111(1):1-40 (January-March 2007)
“Arno Arrak | October 10, 2013 at 4:30 pm | Reply
You too, Judy, have ignored Occam’s razor and turned your eyes away from the simplest and most believable explanation of the hiatus/pause/whatever.”
The important aspect of climate is being able to predict it in the future- this has nothing to do with AGW or CAGW.
This has to do with farming or city planning, regional planning, etc.
So if cattle farming in Dakota you might have some clue regarding how to manage your herd.
People normally avoid risk even if 10% or 20%, if their livelihood or life is depending on, but they instead generally think that it’s generally warming every year- and it isn’t- it doesn’t help them with plans they can make for weeks or months ahead of local weather daily forecast.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/10/10/thousands-of-cattle-dead-in-south-dakota-blizzard/
gbaikie | October 10, 2013 at 5:18 pm | says:
“The important aspect of climate is being able to predict it in the future- this has nothing to do with AGW or CAGW.” If so, why is the press release entitled: “Stadium Waves’ Could Explain Lull In Global Warming?”
Of course they don’t but they are as hopeful as any other group that their work will explain it. Fortunately the search for an explanation of the lull is over because I have already explained it above. I am not particularly fond of long-period, ill-defined global cycles that are hard to pin down or even to detect. The only cycle that is reasonably well understood is the El Nino/La Nina or ENSO cycle in the Pacific. It is an harmonic oscillation of ocean water from side to side along the equator. It is powered by trade winds that constantly pile up warm water in the west. When the water level at the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool is high enough reverse gravity flow begins along the equatorial counter-current. It takes the form of an El Nino wave that runs ashore in South America and spreads out along the coast north and south. Its warm water now warms the air above it, warm air rises, interferes with the trade winds, joins the westerlies, and we notice the start of an El Nino. But any wave that runs ashore must also retreat. As the El Nino wave retreats water level behind it drops half a meter, cool water from below wells up, and a La Nina has started. As much as the El Nino warmed the atmosphere so much will the La Nina that follows now cool it. They always go in pairs and it is impossible to generate a pure El Nino state like Hansen has hypothesized. The resulting temperature curve is a sine wave but it is distorted because of interactions with other phenomena in the ocean. One complete period takes about five years to complete but because of interactions with the ocean it can vary from two to seven years. It has existed as long as the current equatorial current system in the Pacific has existed, which is to say since the Panamanian Seaway closed. I am aware of the existence of PDO, AMO and various other long-period oscillations but find them too nebulous to be useful. What fascinates me however is that an oscillation can be out in front of the eyes of the whole world but climate scientists don’t have cue that it even exists. Specifically, I am talklng of a giant damped oscillation of global temperature that began about 1750 and did not end until 1900. It appears in a publication by Muller about the BEST global temperature project. It has a period of 25 years and between 1750 and 1900 there were six easily observed wave peaks, each successively smaller than the previous one. Clearly some cataclysmic event in the early eighteenth century set it in motion. 25 years is five times as long as the ENSO period of 5 years. If we are dealing with an oscillation of ocean water its path length has to be five times longer than the width of the Pacific at equator. This points to the thermohaline circulation as almost the only likely oscillation path. We know that its terminus is somewhere in the Northern Pacific so a Pacific event could be the cause of the oscillation. Perhaps a tsunami or a landslide in the Hawaiian islands would fit. More I cannot say but someone with a few extra million to spend could follow it up. Just say you are on the track of an extreme extreme event and they will fund you for sure.
“I am not particularly fond of long-period, ill-defined global cycles that are hard to pin down or even to detect. The only cycle that is reasonably well understood is the El Nino/La Nina or ENSO cycle in the Pacific. It is an harmonic oscillation of ocean water from side to side along the equator.”
But can you predict when El Nino/La Nina will occur?
There doesn’t seems to me, that there is much skill at doing this at the
moment.
So, if you are not fond of “Stadium Waves’ then perhaps the answer is no.
Yes, it’s fascinating how much of a the “training period” warming beginning about 1979 occurred in 1998. And that a 1.4K step change in the global average coincided with the 1990 Dying (Ignoring) of The Thermometers (cut from 6000 to 1600). The thumb on the scale was especially weighty.
Judith, congratulations to you and Marcia Wyatt on the publication. I look forward to reading it in depth.
Wonderful work Dr. Curry and Dr. Wyatt. I hope it fosters an avalanche of discussion throughout the media.
Hi Bob T. Marcia indeed was a Ph.d student that I co-advised. She introduced, developed and performed the analysis on the concepts in her dissertation and papers. I first was introduced with her innovative thinking in a class I had at CU-Boulder, where she introduced her concepts which has matured into world class research.
I was very pleased to being able to facilitate her study!
Best Regards
Roger Sr.
Kudos to all.
Roger A. Pielke Sr. | October 10, 2013 at 4:49 pm |
Shame on you.
Threadwinner for pertinence and civility.
===========
How’s the popcorn going, Bart?
Well done sir! She was indeed fortunate to have found such an excellent adviser.
Roger Sr.,
Just a side note/question: to your knowledge has any effort been made over the past decade to measure or even estimate global moist enthalpy? I read your 2006 paper on this and found it quite interesting.
R. Gates,
One number that can be calculated is that the total heat of evaporation of water vapor in atmosphere is about the same as that needed to increase the temperature of the whole atmosphere by about 5.5 C. This number is based on the commonly presented estimate that 0.25% of the mass of the atmosphere is water vapor, heat of evaporation of water, and specific heat of air at constant pressure.
Wyatt chiming in here. There are many good points and questions – far too many to fairly address with only a quick peek. I will attempt to give feedback, but please be patient. I am new at this blogging format. I will address some points, as best I can. I’m happy to post something more formal, but first, a bit of background regarding timing of this hypothesis.
This ‘stadium wave’ idea came to me back in 2006. I began work on it and my first presentation to my original dissertation committee brought blank stares, confused looks, and a ‘go-back-and-find-something-we-all-know-about’ response. The data were ‘saying’ not just that one or two oceanic processes were interacting and influencing temperature, but rather that there was a distinct sequence and lag-time between phasings of the indices that made this hypothesis different. I could not ignore this compelling observation; I simply found those in the field who thought similarly and were willing to go this path with me. Additions to my committee included Roger Pielke, Sr, who directly helped guide me at CU. Then there were Sergey Kravtsov and Anastasios Tsonis of the University of Wisconsin, Madison and Judy Curry (GA Tech). That explains where the ideas (for me) started and how they kept going. Getting footing was slow, at best. Peer reviews quite rigorous and unforgiving.
Yes, people have looked at the effect of interacting processes on temperature, but this is not the stadium-wave hypothesis. The hypothesis is based on the idea that indices constitute a network. The network provides communication and stability – in essence, self-organizing. The local coupling allows for signal propagation. And, much like cells working in our intestines, this network communicates by passing along the signal in a very orderly and predictable spatio-temporal format. This basic tenet of the ‘wave’ was presented in the Wyatt et al. paper co-authored with Kravtsov and Tsonis, first available in April 2011. In that paper, we worked with the original indices – the common indices including AMO, NAO, PDO, NINO and a few others. Work on this found and documented the ‘wave’. Statistics can only show relationships; a mechanism was necessary to add credibility. That paper presented findings from numerous other studies, some mentioned by others in this blog, that helped bolster our statistical evaluation/documentation. The current paper with Judy explores the mechanism in great detail. That is the paper’s essence.
To continue the timeline and discoveries: then it was important to see if models could capture the wave. CMIP raw data (SSTs, SLP, etc) were then used to reconstruct those indices we’d used in WKT 2012 (actual publication year in hard copy (Climate Dynamics)). Same procedures used (Wyatt and Peters 2012). Not a single stadium wave was generated. AMO’s low-frequency component was evident, but no connections hemispherically. No index-to-index communication! This is the critical piece of the wave.
What about the past? Then I employed proxy data, caveats acknowledged. I used 300 years worth. There was the wave! Even in the necessarily abridged networks (as not all indices are well represented by available proxies). Now, caveats recognized, but how could this signal keep popping up in all observational/proxy sets but not sets with model-simulated indices? In the proxy sets of 300 years, a very interesting observation surfaced. The amplitude and tempo of the wave changed radically prior to 1800. 1780 seemed to be the most typical dividing line (I used many different proxy data sets). What happened prior to that date? Could be the sun. I don’t know. I can only speculate. But it is interesting that the tempo is what it is now (and since ~1800). Is that purely due to intrinsic mechanisms or could an external source entrain the frequency and nudge it? One could invoke network theory to surmise: if the solar variability does indeed pulse with a multidecadal cadence (as has been suggested by many on these blogs and in recent papers), due to planetary gravitational fields tugging on the barycenter of the solar system, for example, and if the internal variability of the climate network were paced at a similar beat, could solar’s rhythm entrain that of the intrinsic system and nudge the tempo accordingly? And maybe if the solar output is too weak to couple with components of the network, it maybe is unable to entrain the frequency and the system reverts to its intrinsic pace (see Pikovsky for info on networks).
Now Judy mentioned that we got different results based on the solar reconstruction used. That is true, but an important distinction should be made. Using the different Lean and then Wang reconstructions, where the solar constant changes magnitude, did NOT change the results. That is b/c tempo is all that matters in this analysis. To be specific, SHARED tempo. What differed was when we used the updated Hoyt/Schatten, based on five proxies. It pulses similarly to the other reconstruction and to our wave and as the other solar reconstructions, but WHERE it co-varies differs. Phasing differs with this reconstruction. This is a matter for further investigation.
It is noteworthy that the tempo and amplitude of the wave have been relatively consistent over the industrial era, so it is not apparent if or how a CO2-forcing signal might manifest. Again, further investigation required.
And then regarding the detrending: our point in doing so was to highlight MD variability. It may or may not have removed the exact CO2 signature, but with all else noted here (analysis to 1850, to 1700, with models, etc), there is nothing to tell us that CO2 is doing much to change things. But more testing might tell.
When Judy and I worked on this paper, we wanted to really understand dynamics propagating and sustaining the wave. That is the essence of the paper. Please read before presuming. The PR piece was good, but could not capture the full findings of the paper. Evolution of climate regimes through the progression of the stadium wave through the climate network is what is featured in our work.
When I stated for the PR that this neither supports or refutes AGW, that is true. This many-year project has been motivated solely by curiosity about natural variability at this time scale. The fact that the surface temperature is a product of this wave ‘orchestra’ allows us to see that natural component evolve. Combining the wave outcome with an external radiative component, we have an obvious damping or enhancing of the temperature. That is how our work ties in to the AGW controversy.
And answering the PDO question, PDO is ONE component only. The ‘wave’ papers show how PDO on this timescale tends to behave in the regime evolution.
For now, that’s it. I realize this is a string of spontaneous thinking, trying to help clarify what a PR piece inevitably will miss – nature of the format, nothing more. I hope this helps. Our efforts are built upon those of many before us, and we hope we have not omitted any in our lengthy reference list. By not working toward an agenda, we have the liberty to be truly curious and awed!
> By not working toward an agenda, we have the liberty to be truly curious and awed!
This last sentence blows Marcia’s cover.
Working toward a noble cause might be the oldest agenda there is.
Sometimes, criticizing unmentioned others while doing so corrupts.
Be nice!
And there I thought that their agenda was to produce good research to further the understanding of climate change.
I hate to come across naive and romantic but sometimes being noble is just being noble.
Just curious – can you give any examples of “just being noble” that don’t align with your opinions? Or is nobility (coincidentally?) only found in those you agree with?
count the adverbs. check it twice
” …but sometimes being noble is just being noble.
Just curious – can you give any examples of “just being noble” that don’t align with your opinions? Or is nobility (coincidentally?) only found in those you agree with?”
Saving a kitten from drowning?
Particularly, if it scratches you.
This paper could save IPCC’s hide, but they will probably will scratch you.
> This paper could save IPCC’s hide […]
How so?
Not that I would mind much, if only for irony’s sake:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/28/ipcc-diagnosis-permanent-paradigm-paralysis/
Joshua,
Just staying with the climate debate I have no issue with the integrity of Ed Hawkins or Neven or Issac Held while probably disagreeing with some of their assumptions. I enjoy Roy Spencers’ contributions and don’t particularly worry about his integrity while vehemently disagreeing with some of his politics. I’m appalled by Andy Revkin’s misanthropy but don’t think of him as a bad person and think there is the possibility to have an honest debate with him. Does that answer your question Joshua?
Which part of “we need to put down the IPCC as soon as possible” provides the liberty to be truly curious and awed?
– > This paper could save IPCC’s hide […]
How so?-
How are the damned saved?
Always an interesting question.
If paper was good effort, but is ultimately a dead end- any significant salvation due to it, seems very weak.
Rather my statement is based on the assumption the paper is
a path forward. And in that case there seems many ways this is can be a plus for IPCC {I don’t mean, I’m predicting IPCC would actually capitalize on any future opportunities- I would tend to predict the opposite.}.
First it doesn’t *prove* IPCC is wrong. It’s providing an answer
to the “pause”- it even, sort of fits their ocean heat hiding narrative.
Though not too helpful to the narrative that world is certainly doomed.
{But that is like the kitten whining about being wet}
Having something “recently discovered” helps.
How could anyone have know before, this?
{And doesn’t even sort, of kind of, maybe, make skeptics wrong.}
And if makes progress in greater understanding of climate, it
cleans the slate, so to speak.
Why talk about the past fumblings, when the future is promising in terms of getting more complete understanding of climate science?
So it could be a convenient way to forget things, therefore, the main hide saving mechanism. It can be a reset. Even a distraction.
What happen if more scientist had even more confidence in the future
prediction of climate- it can be a win for organization which has been trying to do this for decades.
As far doom, this paper could involve black swan events- so it’s
even a bone to the doomsayers.
> Why talk about the past fumblings, when the future is promising in terms of getting more complete understanding of climate science?
Perhaps because what was claimed was that “this paper could save IPCC’s hide”.
Anyway, gbaikie’s last comment echoes the topic of this song:
I don’t recall the paper stating that “excess?” heat is begin absorbed by the ocean. I do recall something about cosmic rays, however.
HR –
Yes, it answers my question. Apologies for the bad faith.
– > Why talk about the past fumblings, when the future is promising in terms of getting more complete understanding of climate science?
Perhaps because what was claimed was that “this paper could save IPCC’s hide”.-
I don’t think IPCC is facing an immediate death.
IPCC will probably be around for another decade, and might even manage to do another report. But the future results coming from this particular paper could lead to longer IPCC future than this.
That’s what I meant by “this paper could save IPCC’s hide”.
So say in five years time [2018] and there has been more examination and refining of this paper, there could a higher confidence in modeling future climate.
And at such a point in time whatever failures IPCC has had in past, would not viewed as significant. This is what I mean by “Why talk about the past fumblings, when the future is promising in terms of getting more complete understanding of climate science?”
Or one would at that point in time have a perception [and perhaps reality] of an “New and Improved IPCC”.
Thank you for your response, gbaikie:
We must KILL the IPCC
For a new IPCC to be reborn.
Let’s just hope it won’t turn into a swarm of climate zombies.
sometimes we over interpret.
who is this ‘we’ kimosabi?
You see Joshua and willard have to believe that the ‘we’ in the sentence
refers to the two ladies. For me, I read it differently. sometimes we see what we are primed to see. I think it is quite impossible for either Joshua or willard to see that the ‘we’ in the sentence refers to anything but the two ladies. why? because it allows willard and joshua to maintain their view of things and their view of themselves. The text, like all texts and signs, is ambiguous and uncertainty, so watching how a person reduces the uncertainty in a text is more about them than it is about the text.
> refers to the two ladies.
Oh, ladies.
That changes everything.
Oh, and a small nit:
> Then there were Sergey Kravtsov and Anastasios Tsonis of the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
I believe both Kravtsov & Tsonis are at UW-Milwaukee:
http://www4.uwm.edu/letsci/math/people/faculty/tsonis.cfm
http://www4.uwm.edu/letsci/math/people/faculty/kravtsov.cfm
***
OTOH, Michael Tobis’ alma mater was Madison:
http://planet3.org/author/mtobis/
MT attended Northwestern with me, undergrad of course.
“there is nothing to tell us that CO2 is doing much to change things.” As the real processes of climate variability are identified, CO2 influence will be squeezed out of all the equations. My projection. >:)
Marcia – Thanks for that long explanation. At present, your hypothesis is model-based. What you now need is verifiable, testable scientific evidence. That doesn’t mean waiting several decades to see if the pattern repeats, and in fact that would still not be sufficient as it does not address the underlying mechanism. You need to identify features – components or by-products of the supposed mechanism – that can be tested for in the real world, and which are incompatible with other possible causes. For example, you say “this network communicates by passing along the signal in a very orderly and predictable spatio-temporal format”. OK, demonstrate it. Detect the signal in the real world.
Mike Jonas: Before commenting, actually look at the stuff you’re commenting about! ridiculous
Paul Vaughan. The authors of this paper have done a tremendous amount of work, and much of it is likely to prove very valuable, but at this stage it consists of observations that show the behaviour of certain features are related, and hypotheses as to what the mechanisms behind those behaviours might be. But as far as I can tell, there is no real-world demonstration that the hypothesised mechanisms actually do operate in the expected way. In other words, the data has been put into a model, massaged with a lot of parameters, and a coherent picture has been generated. Without real-world verification of the mechanisms which eliminates other possible mechanisms, we cannot tell if it is correct. As the paper says “We suggest that the stadium wave hypothesis holds promise in putting in perspective the numerous observations of climate behavior; offers potential attribution and predictive capacity; and that through use of its associated proxies, may facilitate investigation of past behavior that may better inform our view of future behavior. […] While evidence strongly supports our hypothesis of a secularly varying climate signal propagating through a hemispheric network of synchronized ocean, atmosphere, and ice indices during the 20th century, we cannot know if this variability, tempo, and sequential chronology will continue into the future.”.
In other words, it looks like there is a signal, it looks promising in the model, but it hasn’t been tested outside the model, and it as yet has no predictive capability.
My comment may have been a bit too brusque, but I don’t think it was all that far off the mark.
Mike, I’m not convinced that you understand what you’re commenting about, but I respect your freedom to think whatever you want and I’m content to leave our exchange at that. All the best.
Wonderful. Please soldier on no matter what.
Great paper Marcia! One (not quite) nit regarding your comment here: it’s probably not the indices that “constitute a network“, rather they point to some more basic factors, perhaps by providing a rough measure of them. Examples of such factors (“mechanisms“) might include:
I made a suggestion a while back regarding modelling using objects of roughly this sort, as an alternative to cell-based GCM’s. This paper seems an excellent step on the road to identifying such objects, in terms that could be defined and programmed.
Hi Ms. Wyatt
Congratulations on an interesting addition to the topics to be explored and volunteering a mechanism to look at.
A couple of naive questions come to mind: How does your network differ/compare to the idea of teleconnections previously posited in climate discussions? Also, would you expect to find harmonics of propagated waves, and what medium would be most congenial for any harmonics that might result?
Thanks
marcia drops by to discuss some fascinating stuff. response from the locals: another opportunity to rant about ipcc — whoops! they didn’t even notice marcia had commented. welcome to online climate discussion marcia!
[ :
goes nowhere – real fast too…
much to discuss not enough time
new results to share with you ozone gradients when time/resources permit
cryptic no apologies time/resource limited…
cheers! (trust you get the idea…)
Thanks for your thoughts Marcia. Your research has yielded many testable hypotheses which is a significant improvement on what has been on offer from orhodox climate science so far.
The stadium wave effect seems most plausible to me because on the surface of the globe this effect will be felt at the regional level and rippling to neighboring regions (spatial networking) over oscillation time scales of around 60 years.
Paleo evidence have indeed shown quite strong spikes in temperature anomolies which gets back to the most important point of your paper with Judith: the extent of natural internal variability needs to be disentangled from anthropogenic and other forcings before we can make any conclusions about the future course of climate.
Marcia, new to blogs? That must be the best-ever first-post, cogent, coherent, compact, lucid and dealing with many points raised. Thanks very much.
Marcia is a full flow fire hydrant of climate information. Her critics lift a hind leg, and tuck their tails for balance.
===========
Kim, as Mike Flynn would say, “Live long and prosper!” And keep raising the quality of this blog.
The wave approaches, full flood of feedbacks.
================
Our resident turd inspector leaves no errant poop unstudied.
“This many-year project has been motivated solely by curiosity about natural variability at this time scale”
Marcia- A scientist cannot go wrong being motivated by curiosity, about any subject. You will never go wrong with that as a guiding light. Congratulations on some terrific work.
Drs. Curry and Wyatt: Kudos! Much-needed viewpoint!
Willard, Joshua: Some comments remind me of a document security stamp spoof: “burn before reading”.
gbaikie: “How are the damned saved?” Many call it “conversion”.
Joshua: “… their agenda was to produce good research to further the understanding of climate change.” Check out the current charter/objective of the IPCC and UNFCCC where it refers to human influences.
Mike (re quote “his network communicates by passing along the signal in a very orderly and predictable spatio-temporal format”): A forlorn hope according to Lorenz, Ed. “Chaos, Spontaneous Climatic Variations and Detection of the Greenhouse Effect.” Scientific. MIT, August 21, 2008. http://eaps4.mit.edu/research/Lorenz/Chaos_spontaneous_greenhouse_1991.pdf
While it is interesting to study waves with an amplitude of 0.1 degrees C, in the context of the conservative 2 C rise from CO2 or the less conservative 4 C rise by 2100, these amount to wiggles in a larger and growing trend that is playing out anyway. The IPCC 0.3-0.7 C by 2035 factors in this and other kinds of wiggles that may add to the background trend.
JimD, Even more so when they didn’t defluctuate with an ENSO index and volcanic disturbances.
Those right there would reduce the variability further.
It’s still an interesting approach but not meaningful in the context of a relentless warming trend. For example, what would the stadium wave correction term be approximately?
Webby
The “relentless warming trend” to which you make reference started back in 1850, when the modern record started (or earlier).
This was long before there were any significant human GHG emissions, so this “relentless warming trend” was obviously not caused by human GHG emissions.
Right?
Plain logic, Webby.
Max
Max,
I read these posts because skeptics and deniers give the farm away. The more they try to use some piece of information to obscure or deflect, the more likely that piece of information is important when applied properly.
So the key piece of info here is the correlation of dT to length of day (LOD), and how the LOD is representing changes in mass density in the earth — potentially the ocean’s density balance. For example, upwelling cold water will change the moment of inertia of the earth as the colder water has a different density than warmer water
So what we do is apply the LOD as a correction to the global temperature anomaly and see how that removes more of the fluctuations observed.
The following figure corrects for SOI, volcanic aerosols, TSI, and LOD:
http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/9609/8j9.gif
This is really cool stuff of course. Figure out the spikes at 1940 and 1944 and the mystery lessens even more.
Web, If you want to look into LOD’s connection to temp anomaly, you need to look at Daily average temp numbers by year and examine the rate of change in temp as the seasons progress. You have to select stations by lat, say only north/south of the tropical zones and all longitudes to isolate the signal.
I looked into what turned out to be daily max temp changes, and there is a rate change.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/clip_image028_thumb.jpg?w=963&h=725
micro
I am using what Curry provided in this paper, which is the LOD as a fluctuation.
Since all work here is normalised to unity variance, I assume you are inferring you 0.1 K amplitude from global mean records. (Where that would seem about right).
If you look at figure 3 in the paper , we can by looking at 1940 that group i and group IV are almost in anti-phase.
This points out that the obsession with global averages masks the scale of the variation.
This is the fundamental flaw in AGW thinking: the _assumption_ that everything averages out so all long term change MUST BE co2.
Quick technical question. On the wheel of fortune does
EIE = WIE + ArcSib
and if WIE reaches a minimum ?2010 and ArcSib reaches a minimum ?2014 then why does it take until ?2024 for EIE to reach a minimum?
Hi HR, EIE is a collection of sea ice extent in the three most eastern seas of the Eurasian Arctic : the Laptev, East Siberian, and Chukchi shelf seas. The ArcSib is sea ice of the Arctic Siberian region. It includes sea ice extent of the Kara Sea and the seas of EIE. WIE comprises the Greenland, Barents, and Kara sea ice. The overlaps of regions are explained in the data section. In short, division between WIE and EIE is based on dominant time scale of variability: 60 year for WIE. The same time scale characterizes EIE, but higher frequencies dominate in EIE. ArcSib, on the other hand, comprises sea ice that varies interannually (almost) only during the summer; while sea ice of Greenland and Barents can be ice free even in winter.
These categorizations also relate to the hypothesized dynamics of the ‘wave’ as it propagates. The dates extrapolate into the future and are estimates based on the lags and the pacing of the signal.
Interesting – how to reconcile this:
with this:
and this:
Does understanding natural internal variability and understanding the “lull in global warming” “have nothing to do with AGW?”
Oh, and regarding that last quote – why promote the misperception that land surface air temperatures equals “global warming.”
Why do scientists that focus on precision and careful analysis make such sloppy statements?
Why stick to picking apart hidden meanings and agendas when there is a plate full of delicious science to rip into?
The “agenda” I see is people intending to do good science.
What I find implausible are the selective ideas people have about how to identify agendas in others.
Because that’s what he does for reasons known only to Josh and his team of therapists…
> his team of therapists…
How courageous of you, Poker.
What Joshua observes is there for everyone to read.
As you well know, he’s only here to be truly awed by Denizens, that’s all.
Yes Will, It’s entirely evident that Joshua’s nasty nitpicking, most often based on a pitiable lack of reading comprehension, is entirely noble.
I get 5 bucks for every time I use the word “entirely.”
> a pitiable lack of reading comprehension […]
You’re on: show me an example, Poker.
Picky eaters, strangely malnourished.
=========
“it says absolutely nothing about AGW…”
the way I read this was with charity.
“its says nothing about the greenhouse effect”
But then Im not Looking to find problems. If one is motivated to find problems, then that bias will be fulfilled.
> its says nothing about the greenhouse effect
Indeed, as Marcia just said:
(Nevermind the few sentences just before that for the moment.)
No CO2 forcing, but AGW is alive and kicking, or at least kicking.
Willard, “No CO2 forcing, but AGW is alive and kicking, or at least kicking.”
Kicking??-must be 17 years on its back kicking fruitlessly at the heavens.
What about dropkicking, Bob?
Nothing wrong with being precise, IMO
A lack of precision, on the other hand, is problematic.
Delay of the game penalty. Don’t you guys practice?
============
Steve,
Well said. Her preface was appreciated. Dr.Wyatt seems to be have an amble talent. I bet those days presenting her work at CU made her strong?
What do you consider the challenge of entering these types of factors (there will be more) into the discussion and final the final work products?
Well let’s see Joshua.
It changed the way I think about internal/natural variability. Check.
It could explain why the warming, which isn’t necessarily from AGW, has disappeared. Check.
Does the AGW have to be true for the above to be true? Nope. Check.
Joshua, your arrival was both inevitable and regrettable. What you have just posted shows your gross cognitive deficit. Did you even bother to read the actual paper? Evidently from your own words, not. Please go away.
Is this your blog, Sir Rud?
No Willard. Istvan is only asking for some cleanliness in the place. Me too, and I suggest you reread your commentaries with some perspective – if you are capable to.
People is trying to understand the implications of the paper for climatology, and have to jump over your opinions on author’s intentions, and your childish attacks on other commenters. Literaly, over the trash you leave behind you.
Willard
It’s neither Rud’s nor yours, Wee Willie.
Max
> and have to jump over your opinions on author’s intentions […]
I don’t. My point is that she should keep them to herself. For instance:
So here’s the test: does deleting the sentence removes anything from that explanation?
If it does, there’s a problem with the explanation.
If it doesn’t, then remove it.
Simple, isn’t it?
Why the hell are we having all this white knighting?
“So here’s the test: does deleting the sentence removes anything from that explanation?
If it does, there’s a problem with the explanation.
If it doesn’t, then remove it.
Simple, isn’t it?
Why the hell are we having all this white knighting?
###########################################
the purpose of the sentence can be charitably construed but you have to be less of a prick. can you do that? I dont think so.
Today when you propose to look at something people will ask you what your agenda is. They just will. gavin asked my agenda when I proposed looking at the temperature record again. Do you want to prove us wrong? is your purpose only to find errors? Think of Jones and warwick. When I replied that my purpose was to have fun and satisfy my curiosity, he remarked that I wouldnt find anything of scientific value. That wasnt my goal. But somehow he thought my behavior should be governed or constrained or informed by his ethics: thou shalt not amuse thyself or satisfy ones personal curiousity.
The governing assumption in the vast majority of GCM/climate studies is that natural variability is a) small, b)integrates to zero over time
and therefore its un interesting when it comes to answering the questions we care about: How much warming will human forcing cause.
We folks then want to look at natural variability ( say Peter or Judith or Marcia) then I can well imagine people asking them the question: why are you interested in that when the current paradigm assumes it integrates to zero and is small? Are you an oil shill or what?. why would anyone want to study natural variability when the agreements to form the IPCC channel investigations to the human forcings, to the things we can control. Why play in the margin. I hear these questions all the time. why collect stamps?
I imagine Marcia had to answer these types of questions as she persued her Phd. I know I did.. mosher why are you applying math to poetry why are you trying to measure novelty in texts. it makes no sense, the paradigm says so. And, of course, anytime you publish science people want to know.. how does this help our side or hurt our side ? and who the hell are you working for? and where did your money come from? and are you a republican? or retired white guy.
Bottom line. the lady gets to answer the nasty questions she will be asked before they are asked. having now done work just because it interested me and having done work to support a cause, I can say there is quite a difference between the two modes of behavior. But then I only speak for myself.
> the lady gets to answer the nasty questions she will be asked before they are asked.
The lady.
That changes everything.
+100 Rud.
Dr Wyatt comes in to provide further information and the two dickwads create negative comment from almost nothing. It is a talent. Just not of any value.
Well Josh, I am no surprised you don’t understand and understanding tends to come from reading and thinking, rather than reading and sneering. However, allow to to assist
AGW via ‘green house gasses’ occurs on op of postulated natural cycles of heat allocation and albedo changes. Many people have postulated that there are cyclical changes in heat transfer from the oceans to the atmosphere which causes rhythmic cycles of warming/cooling. Now, as any AGW can lay on top of these postulated cycles, if one is attempting to calculate the amount of heating a rising GHG like CO2 is causing, one can overestimate the effect during a GHG+warming period and underestimate it during a GHG+cooling period.
So you see, looking at natural processes, in the absence of AGW, can allow one to accurately estimate the effect of AGW.
Now pick on someone your own size or go play in traffic; either will do .
> you don’t understand […]
Curve fitting does not take that much understanding.
It is not just ‘curve fitting’ it is an attempt to formulate a testable hypothesis for cyclical changes in temperature.
It is an act of imagination to formulate a new type of step-wise sequential model
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/scientist-uses-brainwaves-to-test-ideal-prices-for-products-a-926807.html
> It is not just ‘curve fitting’ it is an attempt to formulate a testable hypothesis for cyclical changes in temperature.
Curve fitting is seldom done for curve fitting’s sake.
Joshua,
I read the replies to your comment and noticed that everyone seemed to accept your premise. I think it is legitimate for you to look at those statements and imply what you did. However, I don’t agree with your analysis.
The first two sentences you reference are mutually exclusive and therefore easy to reconcile. “It says nothing about AGW” is accurate. The whole reasoning behind the paper was to take everything else out and just look at variability. “This paper will change the way you think about natural internal variability” is a postulate based on their belief that they have presented fresh material in a new light. From everything I’ve seen it appears that way to me as well but that’s a rather uninformed opinion since I haven’t seen everything. The statement does not mention AGW and only suggests that you will see natural internal variability in a new light. The first statement has absolutely nothing to do with the second statement.
The third sentence, “Stadium Waves’ Could Explain Lull In Global Warming” is also a postulate based on their belief that the current downward trend in the Stadium waves COULD cause A LULL in global warming. Notice they did NOT say ANTHROPOGENIC Global warming. Since they show with this study that Stadium waves will probably moderate temperature up and down you could assume the previous upward waves contributed to warming and therefore COULD contribute to cooling or A LULL in the warming.
Dude the whole purpose of this paper is to isolate variability and see what it does. The temperature charts from 1860 all show periods of time where the temperature rises and in the case of the last one it seemed to be at a pretty good clip. The charts also show sideways trend and somewhat downward trends as in the late 19th century. The Stadium Waves seem to be in sync with the temperature trends of the 20th century. They do not necessarily explain the rise in temperature. If that were the case the waves would trend upward and they don’t. They could explain periods of rising and periods of leveling or falling but not on a prevailing upward trend. The waves simply go up and down exactly like the folks at the sports stadium.
So you can easily have the CO2 factor to whatever degree you want to explain rising temperatures regardless of what this study shows! You could even completely accept the Hawaii study in light of this study depending on how hot the next upward trend would be. So they are perfectly accurate in stating, “It says nothing about AGW”
In my opinion your premise is wrong!
ordvic –
I get your point.
But I still have a hard time reconciling the different statements with each other – despite the logic of your comment.
How it is possible to completely change how you view natural internal variability and argue that the change in your view has nothing to do with (your view of) AGW? Wouldn’t changing your view of internal natural variability force a different view about AGW ? For example, let’s say that evidence convinced me (in a way that I wasn’t convinced previously) that all recent changes in land surface temperatures and sea surface temperatures and atmospheric temperatures and deep sea temperatures and sea ice extent and sea ice volume and sea ice density and moisture content in the air and cloud coverage and rainfall and measures of extreme weather were all directly tied to internal natural variability, and that I can now see that as the result of a statistical modeling of the trends as associated with natural phenomena. Wouldn’t that, necessarily, have implications towards my views about AGW (assuming that I didn’t previously attribute changes in all those measures to be directly tied to internal natural variability, but felt that at least some of them, to some extent, were an outgrowth of AGW)?
Likewise, if the current “lull” were fully explained by internal natural variability, wouldn’t that necessarily have something to do with AGW? Say I previously thought that the current “lull” is not simply a product of variability (which, presumably, could be lost, or considered noise, within a longer-term signal of ACO2) – but a direct indication that ACO2 has no effect on the climate (as the “lull” has coincided with rapid growth in ACO2 emissions). Wouldn’t, then, if I were convinced by new evidence that the current “lull” is explainable by internal natural variability, I have to change my view of AGW (to one that accepts that the current “lull” does not indicate a lack of GHE from AGW)?
Well, yes. That is how I understand the implications of the paper. But nonetheless, I don’t see how explaining periods of rising and leveling-off or falling would not have direct implications to AGW. Even if it simply an explanation for shorter-term patterns that get, essentially, lost in longer-term trends, it is relevant information for understanding AGW
What was my premise?
Had the statement read as mosher suggested as a modification (that it says nothing about the GHE), then I think that your logic would be spot on. IMO, his suggestion for a modification reconciles the different statements.
So let me ask you, by way of better understanding your point. Can you describe a (hypothetical?) set of views on AGW whereby a paper attributing recent trends to internal natural variability would result in no changes?
Joshua,
Thanks for the courteous, thoughtful and thought provoking reply. Your implied premise in trying to reconcile those statements is that one can’t have a changed view of variability (and a new model)without it affecting in some (any) way the model(s) or reality of AGW. This is where I thought you were coming from and I sought to refute.
You did give me pause with your question. I also better understand your view as explained by your first and second paragraphs. You interlock AGW with all the natural phenomena in a dual cause and affect relationship. You can’t have a change in AGW without it affecting natural phenomena and visa versa. So if this paper says natural phenomena behaves differently than we previously believed then by implication it has to affect the way AGW works. I think we’re close to the old circular argument here but I think we’re still in sensical land.
Conversely, I’m saying, as is stated in the post, that you can have a changed explanation for natural phenomena’s effect on climate without any implication to what AGW might mean. In the simpelist terms I can state that based on historical evidence x amount of increase in CO2 will equal y amount of temperature increase as for instance IPCC models. It’s like they warn you in financial advise, ‘previous results do not necessarily equal future performance.’ Now along comes the new paper that refutes our historical basis; now x >y. The noise was greater than expected and actually affected the trend line. It sounds like I’m making your argument. What I am refuting is that there is not enough evidence with this paper to say x is now greater than y and that it does not differ greatly with historical evidence, There may be an error, on the hot side (in the models), but the actual historical trend line didn’t really change. I can’t help it if the IPCC models suck.
Now to your question and the crux of my point of view. This has been done before by others I saw this post but it is blocked to me now, maybe you can see it:
http://chartsgraphs.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/excel-chart-misrepresents-co2-temperature-relationship/
It basically shows how a short term chart misrepresents the long(er) term relationship of CO2 to temperature. There is also long long term charts that show no correlation at all but that is another story. I have two charts (I keep showing) that demonstrate an expansion of trend line with a longer time period. The first chart shows the current pause just starting (just barely) to break trend. The second chart shows historical trend that not only encompasses the current pause but would accommodate a sideways trend as far as the Stadium Wave could take it. As was demonstrated by the previous sideways (stadium affected) wave starting in the forties. So what I’m saying is that this paper does not change the noise it just explains it better. The IPCC computers may have not been able to show trend changing within an overall trend but it doesn’t ultimately necessarily change the overall trend. So my hypothetical is actually reality as the second chart completely accommodates the Stadium Wave affect within it’s broad trend line. Notice the thinner purple trend lines (above and below) especially on the second chart:
http://s1275.photobucket.com/user/philipnord/media/GMT4_zps45cae57f.jpg.html?sort=3&o=2
http://s1275.photobucket.com/user/philipnord/media/GMT1973TREND_zpsb18d7538.jpg.html?sort=3&o=1
Simply put this paper does not refute or prove AGW!
…and my head hurts. (stole that one from Dr Curry)
opps I pasted my charts in the wrong order the first should have been second.
Dr. Curry implies (as far as I understood it)
The ‘stadium wave’ hypothesis is based by interplay between North Atlantic Ocean temperatures oscillation (AMO) and the changes in the sea ice volumes in the Siberian Arctic Ocean region.
But why could it be so ?
Siberian Arctic shelf ice volumes is partially function of the ratio of fresh water inflow from great Siberian rivers (Ob & Yenisei & Lena) and the saline Arctic sea waters.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SHL.htm
The strongest magnetic field in the N. Hemisphere is to be found in the basin of these rivers, Central Siberia. Now let’s consider possibility that mixing of fresh water (poor conductor of electricity) and saline water (good conductor of electricity) could be affected by the Earth’s magnetic field variability. Here is graph of the AMO compared to the geomagnetic field of Ob-Yenisei estuaries area
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SibArc.htm
Elsewhere it was shown that the AMO also closely follows combined oscillations of the sunspot magnetic cycle and the decadal changes in the Earth’s magnetic field.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
Geomagnetic oscillations: are they coincidence, proxy or causation?
Either way it appears that Dr. Curry’s and Dr Wyatt’s stadium wave hypothesis could strengthen the case for proxy or possible causation.
vukcevic, a lot of your observations fit the stadium wave. i checked a few years ago. (we disagree on why)
devils advocate, why couldn’t one of the really big volcanoes in the early 19th century have set this off? is the evidence for that clearly not in the data?
Congrats, Judith, to you and Marcia.
I found the use of sea ice indices to be very interesting, including the coupling between ocean-ice-atmosphere. And I await the reversal of sea ice trends. In the event that happens, there will be lots of but-but-but……
Some day I’ll figure out why the climate science community insists on using abstract forms of sea surface temperature data as indices, like the PDO, when detrending the sea surface temperatures of the KOE (which dominate the North Pacific) would provide the same basic information (only inverted) and would be less confusing for most persons.
Regards
Bob, you had a great graph in 1 of your articles showing a very high correlation between n. atlantic T & sea ice — got a handy link to that??
Paul: High latitude North Atlantic sea surface temperature anomaly vs Northern Hemisphere sea ice:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/figure-62.png
From the post here:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/09/24/how-much-of-an-impact-does-the-atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation-have-on-arctic-sea-ice-extent/
Regards
That’s the 1 I had in mind.
Appreciated like usual Bob.
Cheers
The pieces of the puzzle are all coming together for me today. Thank you Paul and Bob for the education over time that you two and now Marcia and others have given to me.
It’s nice to see lights coming on.
Sorry couldn’t resist! Well done, a paper that makes and allows the reader to think!
+100
Thank you Dr Curry, a very illuminating blog post and paper.
We now have a plausible mechanism for the propagation of variability and climate shifts through the decades and centuries. If true then it would appear to undermine the IPCC hypothesis of low internal variability and high climate sensitivity; instead the pre IPCC SAR perspective that the climate signal contains both internal variability and forcings (including CO2) on decadal time scales, with the Swanson and Tsonis elaboration of that, would appear to offer a more useful model.
Dr Wyatts’s posting above concerning the cadence of this variability, and perhaps it’s interaction with solar cycles is in itself illuminating. One of the objections to the solar climate influence is the weakness of the forcing, but when that forcing is in phase with the climates own cycles then the effect could be amplified: a child on a swing is resistance to small forcings from many directions, in fact in many respects is very stable in its pattern, but small pushes in the direction of travel near the height of the swing have a significant effect.
+100 Excellent.
…but small pushes in the direction of travel near the height of the swing have a significant effect.
Am I supposed to conjure up the image here of a waifish child in the sling as opposed to java the hut?
?????
What is the relationship between inertia and mass?
Is what is happening here the reclassification of a component of natural variability as explained variability? Seems that way to me and if that is the case it is most welcome.
natural need not mean unexplained tom
My apologies. Yes, Kravtsov and Tsonis at Milwaukee. Marcia
No need to apologize. Twas just a nit.
Not every nit needs picked. Rather than a simple correction, you framed it as a criticism, even though you added the nit qualifier.
remarkable how many are unfamiliar with your earlier work with kravtsov & tsonis marcia
nature = fascinating
(including the human variety)
I’m a big fan, Dr Curry, but I have a problem with this contention. The stadium-wave effect works because the quanitities are vectors, with opposite direction of the constituent quantities adding up to cancellation. Energy, by definition, is a quantity without direction. The addition of extra energy will, on balance, only increase the quantity of energy. Additional energy will not work to “cancel out” other quantities of energy, as energy has no direction.
If the stadium-wave effect is to work in the climate system, it can only do so by analogy at best. That is to say, some energy may appear positive (by adding to the temperature signal) and others energy may appear negative (by, for example, being absorbed by the ocean deeps). But, on balance, contributions of energy will only increase the overall net energy balance. However, I don’t understand that the proposition is being put by way of analogy.
I am, of course, more than happy to be corrected on this point. Ch
Similar I think to what you said — i.e., like an analogy — I took it to be in the nature of suggesting GCM-specific parametrizations that might help capture slow changes in large scale interactions among myriad factors about which we have little or no real understanding. And, of course I too am happy to be corrected.
I there a bias to the direction, E to W or W to E, in the movement of warm dense brines towards the north polar region?
I the answer is yes, then you can think of he ice pack being sculpted by the vectorial ocean flow in the same way sand dune are.
The ice would move in a circle like an aerofoil with deposition on the sheltered side and ablation on the flow side,
Think of it like a giant Wankel Engine
I am zooming through the posts, so I miss some names of who posted. Sorry. Someone mentioned Klyashtorin and Lyubushin: The amazing work of Klyashtorin and Lyubushin and the many, many Russian researchers are highlighted in our paper. They observed many of the MD patterns in climate and in fish populations. Well worth reading K&L’s book: Cyclic Climate Changes and Fish Productivity and Frolov et al’s new book on the Arctic: Climate Change in Eurasian Arctic Shelf Seas. As I said, our work is built upon the shoulders of many! We need more Russian literature translated into English. Great works.
And btw, my statement about ‘agenda’ was innocent about the liberty to investigate out of curiosity. I feel fortunate to have the opportunity. I came into this arena after most have retired. Furthermore, Earth’s workings are forever a fascination. That’s all! If I could find evidence for CO2 forcing, I’d be the first to report it. So far I haven’t. But that’s not to say anything more or less.
Re: the ‘find the signal in the real world’, our results do. Modeling it is the problem, and those potential issues are discussed in the Wyatt and Peters paper. I hope someone can design a model that captures the dynamics. The KOE temps would be helpful. They are not available since before ~1950 though, as I recall. Ocean heat content fluxing from that area (not the SSTs) are what appear to really make that area a key ‘link’ in the climate network. Again, more study needed (see Kelly and Dong; Dong and Kelly; and Kelly (all 2004, I believe). Am in a rush. Sorry can’t be more complete. Errors (such as Madison vs Milwaukee) are inadvertent. Just a product of rushing. Over an out for a while…
there are certain words when uttered here initiate a stadium wave of comments. “Agenda” is one of them. For other people using adverbs is a problem. hehe.
> “Agenda” is one of them.
Not just “agenda”, but in this sentence:
We can count one special pleading adverb (“truly”), one unclear pronoun (“we”), one negative action (“not working”), and two intentional concepts (“agenda”, “curious and awed”).
“By not working toward an agenda” is opposed to “working toward an agenda”, a possibility that is predicated of all those who are not as truly curious and awed as the persons referred by the we.
To this we can add: “innocent “.
All this can be true of Marcia, as far as I can tell. Is it true of anyone else to which the “we” can refer?
***
> For other people using adverbs is a problem.
Adverbs indicate a lack of precise verbs. But there’s nothing special about adverbs. It’s just one way Nic Lewis weaseled his way out of his mission to throw red mean without seeming so too much.
Sometimes, adjectives are better indicators:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2013/02/06/lewandowsky-strike-two/#comment-92030
why are there adverbs? think
Don’t shoot the indicators.
willard
“By not working toward an agenda, we have the liberty to be truly curious and awed!”
rather than parsing to find issue’s practice some charity and translate what she says into something true and interesting. you know practice charity.
for example you surely have experienced awe when you find something you were not looking for or looking without a conscious intention or plan.
The feeling is joyful. And haven’y you ever walk through a library and picked up a strange looking book, opened it, and read it just out of curiousity.
in short she is just talking about the difference between search and browsing.. Of course it get draped in moralistic language, but you know exactly what distinction she is making. If not, then read read read.. randomly follow links.. I do it every day
And don’t what ever you do say “Popper” or the demons of science will be released.
> The feeling is joyful.
Let’s grand that it is. Who’s feeling it is, in our case?
Who is this We?
Could be “Marcia”.
Could be “the authors of the paper”.
Could be “me and anyone who does not work toward an agenda”.
***
Only the first case could be charitably interpreted as innocent.
There are adverbs because it is not nearly as cool for Capt. Kirk to just “go where no man has gone before.”
“why are there adverbs? think”
Because advertising would be lifeless without them.
willard I read it as a royal ‘we’
you have to be prick to read it otherwise
willard cannot answer why there are adverbs otherwise his point will be lost.
instead we discus we.
at this point I suggest random accusations about things willard has said in the past and when he asks for links send him on wild goose chases.
willard-check.
Bag-check
The woods are full of snipes, but you have to be very still and quiet.
================
> willard cannot answer why there are adverbs otherwise his point will be lost.
Which point that would be?
Our white knight’s baits and switches never work, but he still uses them.
> I read it as a royal ‘we’
Indeed, and in fact this royal “we” offers a striking contrast with:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/10/the-stadium-wave/#comment-396434
This certainly makes one think twice about promoting one’s own noble cause.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/10/qa-former-un-climate-chief-perils-2013101011191590761.html
Mosher seems an intuitive thinker. I also find that my reading tends towards randomness and the funny thing is that answers to questions often pop up in most unexpected ways.
Dr. Wyatt, your paper with Dr. Curry is an edification. Many thanks.
I have found from much lesser edified posts here that there is little ( but not no) need for apology, since much of the critical comment stems from bias or ignorance. Or both. Highest regards on a very well documented and most thought provoking paper. Wishing you the best.
> I have found from much lesser edified posts […]
Me too, for instance:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/03/19/playing-hockey-blowing-the-whistle/
Rud –
I would suggest that you use Marcia’s comments as a lesson for how to clarify ambiguities. Name-calling is far less effective – if the goal is clarification.
Marcia,
Willard is our local Smart Ass, i.e., an oxymoron, an intelligent donkey. Please disregard his cynical brayings, they are not personal but just the reflex reaction of a certain kind of mind.
To claim that “we’re have no other agenda except awe and wonderment” begs the question why it is claimed and whom we should distinguish this “we”.
In fact, just knowing to whom this “we” refer might be nice.
Yes. Words to live by. Never go to the donkey show.
We have a stable full of them.
Who would have imagined so many talking donkeys
I blame Mr. Ed.
Great paper Marsha. I look forward to future work. Since your new to this blog, watch out for a few characters. Willard will have you on the sofa forcing you to confess it was your mother who insisted on adverbs.. Mosher will fly by and occasionally hurl a dry ice ball at you. FOMD will have you begging for Xanax. Joshua, well Joshua will make you question your femininity. Web just played too much football.
huh? anytime somebody posts their actual paper and shows up to answer questions. I try read their paper first before asking them questions.
Dr Wyatt,
Having someone come to talk about their paper and research is greatly appreciated. Let the cat calls and criticisms from the cheap seats roll off your back.
To keep a wave propagating in a lossy medium requires a continuous application of energy to sustain the oscillation, The most likely source of energy in both N and S hemispheres are the jet streams,
However my own view of the o,n/off nature the present and earlier pauses lies deep in the properties of the many varieties of the CO2 molecule. So I regard the quantum physics of CO2 as providing a necessary and sufficient conditions for the 20th and 21st century pauses.
Right, the stadium wave pattern extends to roughly the valley of the LIA. Warming from the LIA and possibly beyond would drive the wave whatever the actual cause of the warming might be. That I believe is kind of the point, there would be a recurrent warming pattern of natural variability. There would likely be a recurrent cooling pattern that should be similar plus there would likely be a neutral pattern.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/lvWaBy0wlOrtIIXqdBxZcoIbYmiRkogfJXXjyTMywKU=w330-h209-p-no
“normal” to ~1200, cooling pattern to ~1700, mirror image warming pattern to present.
If you know what pattern is most likely, then you can predict a little more accurately what a future trend should be. No guarantees, but a step in the right direction if I understand their approach.
Choppy waters with reversed waves. I wonder if that’s what’s tugging on the line, now.
========
Oops, capsized that little teacup of a metaphor. I wonder how these waves work in a millenial scale cooling trend.
==============
Kim, it is very easy to have the same amount of heat in the system and have different ‘average temperatures’, it all depends where the warm equatorial goes,
DocMartyn
Yes, Two if by land one if by sea to some degree.
This is exactly what the models need to resolve first – ocean behavior – the dog of terrestrial climate components. This work is pointed in the right direction.
Rather than “stadium wave” I would think that a mobile (as in kinetic art) would be a better analogy for a number of oscillators that oscillate individually and interact in such a way as to create a chaotic action.
Thanks. I make this kinetic art analogy myself and think it’s very useful.
But that is not what this paper does. Here we have eight complex nonlinear phenomena that somehow are complicit in forming a single resonance.
It’s not chaos at all. Rather it appears astonishingly coherent.
Coming soon to a theater near you: The Tides of Climate versus the Coriolis Effect…
Marcia,
Although my paper is not aimed at the 60 year cycle, you may be intersested in other “waves” that are linked to solar system dynamics that control the Sun.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=36513&
The paper is open access.
Judith, congratulations on a job well done.
The Wyatt/Curry work has already received the FOMD Certificate of Appreciation and Thanks (here and here). Especially, this work provides terrific foundations for further investigations leading to broader climate-change understanding.
Regrettably, there’s a vocal subset of denialists who vehemently *oppose* further research along the Wyatt/Curry lines:
Please let me say to Drs. Wyatt and Curry, that the great majority of skeptics, scientists, and just plain ordinary Climate Etc, are united in rejecting cwon’s false claims, and in rejecting cwon’s abusive language, and in rejecting the ideology-of-ignorance that drives those falsehoods and abuse.
So please keep working with a good heart and inquisitive spirit, Marcia Glaze Wyatt and Judith Curry! Let the scientific chips fall where they may, and please have fun *continuing* to do good work!
Applause, Applause! Well said.
+1 FOMD. I agree with you entirely this time, a most welcome change!
Fan I quite often find myself at odds with your perceptions, but in this case I am in complete agreement with your assesment. The particular poster you mention antics are beyond the pale and without merit. I appreciate that you have documented this atrocious behavior.
Fan,
you have been a credible commentator on this one. I would like to point out that cwon is an outlier and representative of nothing except his own opinions.
Refreshing!
From the paper: We also introduce transformed time series to convey insight into forcings and responses among indices whose behaviors are interconnected within a network. Transformed time series include two types: time-integrated, such as ACI and PCI, and time-differentiated values. The former yields anomaly trends of an index’s time series; while the latter converts time series of indices into incremental values – an approximation of the time-derivative of a trend (e.g. AT is the approximate time-derivative of ACI). Transformed indices are useful in detecting potential cause-and-effect relationships. We focus on the time-integrated transformation in this study.
Can we expect a paper with a focus on the time-differentiated transformations?
Matthew, at the last minute, we decided to cull out the use of time-differentials. I used them quite a bit in my dissertation work, finding that they helped uncover incremental forcings on some of the systems with greater memory, or persistence. Their inclusion was not necessary for this paper, but just to address your question, there will probably be no future paper of ours with those. While not highlighted, time differentials are alluded to in this paper with respect to some of the wind patterns.
Marcia, is your dissertation available for downloading?
I want to congratulate Dr. Curry and Dr. Wyatt on achieving their goal of explaining natural variability as well as it can be explained without leaving entirely the framework of mainstream climate science. They did leave the framework of climate models, though they did not say as much. But no climate modeler will admit the possibility that there can be a natural process that partially determines temperatures in the NH over a period of 300 years; that is, a natural process, somewhat cyclic, independent of the effects of radiation. Modelers countenance “internal variability” rather than natural variability and regularly confuse the two. “Internal variability” is a programming restriction placed on natural processes such as ENSO to guarantee that they do not violate conservation of energy. Curry and Wyatt have for the first time given meaning to the concept of “natural variability” that will bear the weight of serious science within the community of climate scientists.
Curry and Wyatt do face a huge backlash from mainstream climate scientists. No doubt they expected it. They will prevail.
They did not escape the framework of multivariate statistical analysis. But that is to be expected because climate science remains in its infancy. The outline that they have drawn can be filled with the results of empirical research as time permits.
I see from the comments that the article has elicited much confusion and opened speculation on many blind alleys. I am far from surprised. Thinking outside the modeling box is very difficult especially because it is punished. Finding long-term processes in nature, natural processes, that partially determine temperatures over a hemisphere and showing that these processes can be identified independently of the action of manmade CO2 amounts to an astounding breakthrough for scientists trained in the prevailing paradigm of climate science.
Breakthrough made! Mission accomplished! Well Done!
Thank you, Theo, on the insightful distinction between natural variability and internal variability. Your points are well taken and appreciated.
Prof Curry: In the version at the link, the figures have migrated out of their boxes. I have checked multiple times, and downloaded.
I find that too. I viewed in Okular so I thought it may be a compatibility issue.
It seems the document was created on Mac version of Word.
I haven’t read through all the posts since last look, but I want to address a few: the Dickey and Marcus piece, a bit about NINO, and some of the comments on AGW.
First, DM removed their estimation of the CO2 footprint from the global surface temperature. They used an algorithm, but I do not know what it is. I’m sure they would supply it. They did nothing to the ngLOD. The ngLOD strongly correlated positively with their ‘corrected’ global average temperature. This provided a sense of credibility to the use of ngLOD in this work. In our work, the same ngLOD that DM used was employed. Our results show that three indices were strongly correlated; the phasings of ngLOD, anomaly trends of large-scale winds in Atlantic-Eurasian region, and the Arctic T were almost identical. In contrast, NHT followed by a couple of years.
Boreal winter-NINO’s role in the wave’s low-frequency component of the surface avg T (NHT) is slim and not similarly phased; although the anomaly trend of NINO (low-frequency component) coincides closely with NHT, as does the anomaly trend of winds related to Pacific circulations (among them, PDO).
Again, the ‘wave’ does not imply anything about AGW other than to provide insight into a possible reason contributing to the two ‘lulls’ in temperature increase over the last 115 years. Finding the wave’s relationship to the CO2 footprint on temperature was not a goal of the study. But, findings do suggest an influence, damping or enhancing the T on multi-decadal timescales, nevertheless. It may not be the full answer to the observation, but perhaps a strong contributing factor. This may give insight into climate sensitivity. And yes, let the scientific chips fall where they may. There is no preferred outcome or answer on our part.
And for goodness sakes, can we please drop discussion regarding my clumsiness with the language. All I can say is that I meant none of what is being assigned to the statement. I have no judgments on others, despite how the statement might have come across. I see your point that there were better choices of wording. I too often fall short of effective communication. Blogs are not my preferred mode of scientific dialogue, as this weakness becomes apparent. I hope not to fuel any more flames. If I do, again, it is not intentional. I’m merely trying to help convey our work to those who might be interested.
“And for goodness sakes, can we please drop discussion regarding my clumsiness with the language.”
Sorry, but that can’t be allowed. There are commenters here who would have absolutely nothing to say if they weren’t quibbling about semantics.
Calling Willard.
> There are commenters here who would have absolutely nothing to say if they weren’t quibbling about semantics.
Speaking of which, here’s an example of semantics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems
I deal with pragmatics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics
There are commenters here who would have absolutely nothing to say if they weren’t white knighting for Judy, whining about other commenters, or ranting about Progressives.
Willard,
First, thanks for responding to my wisecrack with a semantic argument. You’re a fun guy, albeit not always intentionally.
And at least I have three topics according to you. Triple your selection.
> You’re a funny guy, albeit not always intentionally.
Do you think my “speaking of which” was unintentional, GaryM?
My point is not semantical, you know.
willard what GaryM means by semantics is not what you as a professional mean by semantics. Please show more charity.
Profess my ass; confess more apt.
============
> Triple your selection.
I did not know GaryM white knighted.
http://www.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/content/20131009-democratic-candidate-va.-gov.-ex-ri-justice-s-law-firm-among-caramadre-s.ece
” I’m merely trying to help convey our work to those who might be interested.”
1. no good deed will go un punished
2. The uncharitable will do what they do.
3. If you had published with anyone but Judith, willard and Joshua would
say nothing.
4. Don’t mind them, they are mostly talking to us not you, but they are
using you to talk to us.
Thanks for showing up. I’m about halfway through your paper, may have some ? later
> Don’t mind them, they are mostly talking to us not you, but they are
using you to talk to us.
This comment would be an excellent example of doing this.
steven –
Oy. What a drama queen.
Who is being “punished?”
joshua
anyone interested in the actual science is punished when you show up.
now in the grand scheme of things its a very slight puunishment but willard has outlawed averbs and adjectives. so we are stuck.
finally there is a thing called a cliche. you know how they function right?
maybe i should have said it this way.
If you make a good faith effort to show up and answer questions about your science, rest assured that the prick named Joshua will show up and waste pixels. He has to. he cannot help himself
yes willard. it is an example. keep reading.
That would be a plausible explanation, steven, if the drama queening weren’t so constant with you. I think that my explanation is more likely. You over-dramatize many aspects of these discussions, selectively. And in particularly, If someone criticizes the reasoning or even the wording of someone you feel loyal to, you get very emotional.
You forget, steven, that I have a “window into your soul,” and I know your opinions better than you know your opinions.
It’s not the wording that is questioned, but the act and its scope.
The wording only provides hints.
Thank you for the kind words, Timg.
Can you check why the figures are coming out of the boxes for me? Is it something about my network, my computer, my version of AdobeAcrobatReader?
With increased measurement of parts of the system, and with increased analytical and computational abilities, I think that more and more waves like this will be found, and more and more interactions among parts/places of the system. As everyone always reminds everyone, it is hard to tell how much of this result represents a real dynamical system operating into the future, but I think it’s good work. I prefer to see vector autoregressive methods used, but that’s kind of a personal quirk.
> I’m merely trying to help convey our work to those who might be interested.
Then talk about your work and not about the nobility of your intentions, Marcia. Considering the advertisement that this paper previously had at Judy’s, the activism of your co-author, and the inevitable politization of your results, you just can’t open yourself to discuss them.
Let your work stand on its own.
Good thing she and Dr. Curry aren’t claiming they are on a mission from Gaia to save all mankind from Thermageddon. Then Willard would really let her have it.
The truth is out there, GaryM.
nobility? gosh, you are over reading tonight.
use some charity willard. you know the crap you lectured others about.
or count adverbs.
This climate endeavour drained his cup of charity, and the dregs drip all over his front, like the gentle rain.
=====================
willard lecturing others about charity? Got a link? That’s something I’d like to see. W/ Context. Prima Facie it sounds like an extreme of hypocrisy.
> nobility?
Yes, like in “noble cause”, you know what not working with an agenda can provide, awe and whatnot.
Yes, but semantics, but charity.
I shudder to think what the result would be if we focused on willard’s work instead of his intentions.
AK.
there are many places.. part of the fun is looking
start here. read the whole thing
http://init.planet3.org/2010/10/willard-on-curry.html
and then do searches on willard and the principle of charity on this blog.
Of course you will find that willard almost never follows the principle. That’s not his fault.
When will willard wonder well?
===========
@Steven Mosher…
I’m still browsing through “willard-on-curry”, found this gem:
by Steve Bloom November 1, 2010 at 2:20 am. Hm…
Here’s something about the principle of charity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
Denizens should own the point I made. It was formulated with ordinary words. It rests on truthful claims. It’s a valid point. It takes into account that Marcia wished to express something genuine.
Moshpit’s claim that I never practice charity is false, and his overall slurs despicable.
***
And since Grounskeeper Willie made an appearance:
http://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/if-you-only-see-half-the-debate-youre-in-church-listening-to-a-sermon/comment-page-1/#comment-3491
***
Oh, and speaking of semantics:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/28/overestimated-global-warming-over-the-past-20-years/#comment-372687
***
The principle of charity only applies as provisos. Serial misrepresenters like Moshpit, Groundskeeper Willie can’t escape their untruthful claims, invalid arguments and dismissive slurs by asking their victims for mercy, a concept we should not conflate with charity anyway.
Let’s hope AK won’t follow on the same path.
PS: BTW, “Willard on Curry” is not supposed to make any sense, because Judy said so.
@willard…
I’m quite familiar with the principle of charity, and even posted a link to a discussion of it on John S. Wilkins’ (old) blog a year or two (IIRC) ago. If you have an index of my comments here, perhaps you have that one.
My point was exactly the same as Steven’s: you never (seem, IMO, to) practice it. In fact, you appear to deliberately find ways to not understand what ought to be perfectly clear meanings, for little purpose other than to waste people’s time clarifying things for you. Almost always, here, aimed at people who don’t defend the consensus.
Since you bring up my statement ““Climate” is also a myth“, especially in terms of semantics, I’ll point out that the use of the word “myth” as a synonym for “lie” is secondary. The scientific study of myth has progressed far beyond the nonsense (IMO) of Graves or Campbell: I’d recommend When They Severed Earth from Sky: How the Human Mind Shapes Myth by Barber and Barber, if you need a starting point. A myth is a story conceived as metaphorically true in some sense that functioned (originally in pre-literate evolutionary terms) as a form of cultural memory, incenting some sort of action.
The word “climate” has two operative meanings, that are not identical! Using them interchangeably is tantamount to an untruth, Done deliberately for the sake of deception, as IMO the IPCC does, is a lie. I guess this thread is an excellent venue to pursue this, as Wyatt and Curry 2013 represents (IMO) a milestone on the road to actually understanding the mechanism behind how climate works.
Dear AK,
Thank you for playing the Red Shirt of our weekly episode of Climateball. Before we play, though, I’ll simply note that this:
shows how to inflate semantical argument into a search for the “truth that is out there”.
This example also shows that you, dear AK, have some kind of taste for semantic quibbling, which starts with a quite commonplace claim that scientific entities like “climate” belong to the realm of fictions:
If you ever are interested into fictionalism, there’s a whole bunch of papers awaiting you:
http://philpapers.org/browse/ontological-fictionalism
How this can be turned into another KILL THE IPCC slogan is a thing of beauty. The result of thousands of years of evolution.
***
Thank you for your overall concerns, to which we’ll return sooner than later.
Due diligence,
w
Willard,
why the long post on charity? A few readings from the bible do far more at explaining the concept than any or all of your references.
> A few readings from the bible do far more at explaining the concept than any or all of your references.
Do you have a specific passage in mind, timg? If you don’t pick one, I will choose Matthew 6:1 and you will lose.
Some day, people might get the hint why Moshpit keeps injecting this theme. And then he could wash his hands, like Pontius Pilate did.
Since when has reading the bible become a completion Willard?
And how does one possibly lose?
(I do have one from Corinthians I like. Let me find it and I’ll post it for you.)
Marsha,
Thanks for answering my questions about anthropogenic footprint that DM removed beginning with their 1930’s ngLOD/average surface temperature correlation. It seems you are saying this had absolutely no impact on your stadium-wave hypothesis. Is that correct? You don’t use the corrected data? In any case, what do you make of their supposition that they detected the anthropogenic footprint that early?
Overall, a nice bit of creative puzzle solving– or puzzle creating– as time will tell if the stadium-wave is real or imagined.
Sorry…Marcia not Marsha!
RG,
The LOD correction is quite interesting. It’s an independent, factor that apparently has no effect on the underlying trend according to Dickey.
So instead of correcting for SOI and AMO, we just correct for SOI and LOD (plus volcanic and the small TSI). The fit is quite pleasant, and all cycles and plateaus are removed, with just a few spikes remaining
http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/9609/8j9.gif
We did not use the “corrected” temperature used by DM. We used the boreal-winter month average surface temperature for the Northern Hemisphere with the linear trend removed. This allowed for two things: it met the MSSA requirement of using a mean of zero and it allowed greater ability to focus on multidecadal-scale variability. When the stadium wave work began years ago, I was not thinking about removing the CO2 footprint, I was thinking about removing the linear trend so I could examine what was hidden beneath it! It became assumed later that much of that CO2 footprint had likely been removed with the detrend, but we do not refer to this assumption in the paper. We try to stick with what we know. All we know is we removed the linear trend. Again, its association with CO2 was only a product of the press release content.
Regarding my opinion on the DM work, I find it interesting. I’m not in a position to really opine about their findings of the divergence in 1930s. It is interesting that extremely high Arctic Ts and low ice cover occurred then. Could this mean other things at play. I don’t know enough of their research details. But, I do find it interesting that in our research (and some done during my dissertation work), that the ngLOD co-varied strongly with Arctic T (which slightly precedes NHT) and the East Asian surface temperature. I think great promise lies in the information ngLOD can reveal.
As Pekka has said elsewhere in this thread, the underlying trend is likely not linear. It is somewhere between a quadratic (n=2) or cubic dependence (n=3) with time. He has a very important point to make in that if you assume linear then the underlying profile will need to curve to compensate for the forced linearity.
I use the Cornell U tool Eureqa to do the fitting over the time series and choose data starting from 1880, as this is the earliest date to get data for all the interesting data sets. Running Eureqa usually ends up giving a linear combination of the components
Temperature= c1* LOD+ c2*Time^n + c3*Volcanic + c4*SOI+ c5*TSI+ offset
The correlation coefficient that Eureqa finds for good solutions exceeds 0.97 for values of n between 2 and 3. It never seems to find sine or cosine solutions with time, which indicates that there are no unidentified oscillatory components not related to either SOI, LOD, or TSI. The volcanic is sporadic for certain, and not oscillatory.
WebHubTelescope: I use the Cornell U tool Eureqa to do the fitting over the time series and choose data starting from 1880, as this is the earliest date to get data for all the interesting data sets. Running Eureqa usually ends up giving a linear combination of the components
Temperature= c1* LOD+ c2*Time^n + c3*Volcanic + c4*SOI+ c5*TSI+ offset
That looks extremely interesting. Is it available online? Published?
I just added the LOD today so I can’t imagine it getting published already.
This shows the composition:
http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/6837/vlq.gif
and the main page is here
http://contextearth.com/2013/10/04/climate-variability-and-inferring-global-warming/
After harassing people who pointed to LOD for years, suddenly formerly-ignorant people here are developing an appreciation for what’s richly encoded in LOD. Let me assure you folks who are just beginning to appreciate and revel in LOD: You’re just getting started. If you look at other statistical properties of the LOD record (use the daily record 1962+) you’re going to see lunisolar & solar. I’ve been pointing to Dickey’s work here for years. No one here thought it was important. It seems that suddenly that has changed. Now analyze daily LOD for Schwabe-resolved cyclic volatility at semiannual timescale for a seriously-needed wake-up call on westerly winds (jet streams). It’s a small step from there to understanding the MD waves in LOD & NH circulation. Are you folks finally ready to get serious here? I sure hope so. There must have been divine intervention to stir up this 180 degree change in attitude.
Vaughan,
To the articulate go the spoils. To the nebulous, nothing.
Seriously, the LOD is a small amount in the greater scheme of things. It appears to be adding about +/- 0.05 C to the temperature signal, which is already at +0.8C to +0.9C due to AGW.
It appears to be adding about +/- 0.05 C to the temperature signal
Which is a around the gain of the so called 40 yr increase in OHC so what are you saying?
Something very seriously wrong with those numbers. You must be working with air temperatures. Were I not working so many hours leaving so little time, what I wouldn’t do to correct the solar-terrestrial-climate distortion. I suspect a lot of the contributors around here must be retired, unemployed, independently wealthy, &/or working with the support of the extreme luxuries I once enjoyed during my ivory tower days. Remain objective WHT. The 2nd order central difference coherence is significant and its governed by solar cycle acceleration (its simple circulatory geometry). Your initial excitement about your awakening conveyed due appreciation of nature. Refreshing. Don’t falsely assume I’m resistant to the idea of warming — but you’re going to have to convince me that you deeply understand externally-driven MD NH natural climate before I’ll even be willing to discuss the partitioning of centennial warming into natural & anthropogenic components. The “internal” narrative was stillborn. It’s strictly ruled out by the geometric proof I’ve minimally outlined for advanced parties (all I have time for).
WebHubTelescope, those links are interesting. Thanks.
WebHubTelescope: Temperature= c1* LOD+ c2*Time^n + c3*Volcanic + c4*SOI+ c5*TSI+ offset
I didn’t notice this before I read the post at the other link: you have a cubic polynomial for the fundamental time trend of temp from 1900 – 2010+. How good is that really for planning for, say, 2047?
I’ll add this to the collection of “live” models (those not yet clearly discrepant from data) and see how well it does over the rest of my alert life.
Marler, It’s getting tiresome to reach the bar that you keep raising. The power law function is essentially duplicating the CO2 growth rate. In other words, we get an equivalent fit if we replace time^n with ln(CO2).
I imagine the spoon-feeding will continue until you tire of getting pummeled by MNFTIU.
Matthew R Marler | October 12, 2013 at 10:00 pm | wrote “WebHubTelescope, those links are interesting. Thanks.”
Agree. They’re very interesting. So interesting I went out of my way to report them at Tallbloke’s Talkshop. I had written WHT off for repeatedly and very rudely making statements strictly inconsistent with data in the past, but something of this nature causes pause for reconsideration. We have witnessed here a deep awakening — a rare event in the climate discussion. Definitely the top highlight of this thread and probably the most interesting & noteworthy development I’ve seen at (usually stagnant & crusty sorry to say) CE in months.
WebHubTelescope: In other words, we get an equivalent fit if we replace time^n with ln(CO2).
Then show it: time^3 is different from ln(CO2) over the past 100+ years.
It’s nice to see a reference to a “power function law” but the particular power, time cubed, is unbelievable. It’s extrapolation to the near future is more extreme than the IPCC GCM simulation means.
What do you mean resetting the bar? I added your model to the set of “live” models to be tested by future data. That’s the same “bar” I “set” (so to speak) for Vaughan Pratt’s model, and I have mentioned it for all models.
oops. That’s “Its extrapolation”
Paul Vaughan: Definitely the top highlight of this thread and probably the most interesting & noteworthy development I’ve seen at (usually stagnant & crusty sorry to say) CE in months.
The highlight of this thread for me was the initiating paper by Wyatt and Curry. Second to that was the series of responses by Wyatt.
Comparing Vaughan Pratt’s model and the WebHubTelescope model with the cubic time trend for temperature, I think that Vaughan Pratt produced a more credible model for the overall temperature trend, and WebHubTelescope has produce a more credible model for the residual variation. But there are lots of “live” models, that is, models that fit the recent past; which survive the testing of the next few decades I hope to find out.
WHT’s LOD revelation was triggered by passage of Marcia Wyatt’s stadium wave through CE. It moved him, whereas little else has. So I would say we’re not in disagreement MRM.
Thank you, Dr. Wyatt, for your paper and comments. You are discovering that some of the denizens suffer from blog versions of OCD:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsessive%E2%80%93compulsive_personality_disorder
It is healthy to ignore those who cavil about items which do not interest you.
Marcia –
Thanks for the clarification, and I apologize for my misreading.
I hope that you understand that there are many here who selectively identify agendas on (only) one side of the climate change debate. For that reason, I think that clarity in language is called for, and when wording is ambiguous, clarification (as you gave) is also called for.
Flames can be fueled by either the writer or the reader (as we can see in this case). And they can also easily be doused, as you have demonstrated.
“But, findings do suggest an influence, damping or enhancing the T on multi-decadal timescales, nevertheless.”
Such an important point
“And yes, let the scientific chips fall where they may.”
Bravo, and as it should be
Marcia
There are those here who parse every word. It is exasperating and best ignored unless it is germane to the understanding of your paper.
You said
‘”First, DM removed their estimation of the CO2 footprint from the global surface temperature. They used an algorithm, but I do not know what it is. I’m sure they would supply it.’
I will go through all the comments (morning here in the UK and this was the first comment I saw) but yesterday I asked if you could identify the periods of low/high ice and what extent they might have grown/shrunk to.
As you know there are many periods of low ice, for example, that stretch through the 1920-1940 period. the 1820 to 1850 period, the 1710 to 1740 era the early 1500’s and for several hundred years on and off during the Viking colonisation. We have many good Russian references to several of these periods and I am currently researching the apparent opening up of the Northern Sea route during the 1530’s. Scientific Literature since the 1920’s has been hampered due to the cold war and subsequent antagonism to Russian research.
So I would like to know why there were these extended periods which clearly predated enhanced co2?. A start could be made on this conundrum if we could know WHY DM decided to remove the CO2 footprint, how they care to their ‘estimate’ and the algorithm used.
Thanks for your time here. The vast majority of us do appreciate your engaging in such an open manner.
tonyb
Marcia,
You say:
> And for goodness sakes, can we please drop discussion regarding my clumsiness with the language. All I can say is that I meant none of what is being assigned to the statement.
Perhaps I was not clear enough.
I could not care less about how you spell out your motivations. The fact is that you do spell them out. It is the fact that you appeal to your motivation that is suboptimal.
However you will try to portray your motivations, they will contrast with your co-author’s. You’ve just published a paper with a climate warrior, with non-negligible PR facilities.
This is not a point about your clumsiness with language.
Wait until you meet the climate warriors that Judy combats until you judge if I’m being mean right now.
***
Congratulations for your paper. I hope this is the first one of many.
“I could not care less about how you spell out your motivations. The fact is that you do spell them out. It is the fact that you appeal to your motivation that is suboptimal.”
But willard you DID CARE about how she spelled out her motivations.
you cared that she used the word ‘we’ and liberty, for example.
And its not a fact that she appealed to her motivations. she spelled them out. In fact its impossible not to spell out your motivations, al beit sometimes folks do this vaguely. The very ACT of communicating spells out a motivation.
Show some integrity Willard.
Your comments were BS, you were called on them and no matter how well you articulate, you are still on the wrong side with regard to your behavior. An honest actor would at least acknowledge they stepped out of bounds, if not actually offering an apology. A prick keeps offering up justifications.
> [Y]ou DID CARE about how she spelled out her motivations.
Only because she DID use a way to spell it out, which means that my criticism is not specific to a single wording of what expressed. Had she chosen ANOTHER WAY to spell out her motivations, the criticism would have been the same. Even the means to substantiate that claim would be the same: look at was said to see what is being done. The motivations need not be accessed via a Ouija board or other over-charitable means.
Words lead to deeds. Deeds matter more than words. Alternative words matter little if the deed is the same.
A white knight armour may not be the best accoutrement for a black hat marketer.
Thank you for your kind words, timg. Please continue. We’ll talk about behaviours in due time.
Since I’m here, and to illustrate what I said earlier:
> you cared that she used the word ‘we’.
Had she used “I”, the question would have been: why not “we”, since this a co-authored paper? Authorship extends beyond pronouns.
One does not bring on the table something one does not wish to discuss.
Judith and Marcia,
The following diagram shows the merging of the two “waves” that control climate. I think it meshes very nicely with your theories.
Whether the two waves are always in sync is debatable, but answers are coming fast.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/powerwave3.png
ps. disregard the “landscheidt” reference in the link, the science is very different.
Very interesting, Geoff. Just a quick mention re: terminology. Not to take away from what you’ve presented, and likely you know this, but sometimes synch, synchronous, and synchronize can get confusing. I’ll take the opportunity you’ve inadvertently afforded me here in order to clarify. Synch loosely implies synchronous, i.e.occurring at the same time. Synchronization is often misinterpreted as meaning the same thing. It is not, or at least not necessarily. Instead, synchronization means ‘matched rhythms’. Indices in the stadium wave are synchronized, but not synchronous, thus the signal can propagate through them.
Figure 3 “Annotated Expanded ‘Stadium Wave’ shows 20th-century signal propagation through a 15-index-member network…” (page 53)
It is a work of art. If I am reading it correctly, the IV to opposing sign I, are the regime changes. And the same slope lines at that time are the couplings. Thanks!
It is a jumble, figure 3. Subsequent figures and text are intended to disentangle it. Yes, the climate-regime transitions occur b/n IV and -I and -IV and +I. The trend reversal of the AMO index coincides with the incipient stage of a new regime. A regime is used in our work to indicate an multidecadal interval of time during which surface temps (our NHT) are increasing (a warming regime) or decreasing (a cooling regime). The stadium-wave signal propagates through four stages of regime evolution, each stage characterized by a certain type of coupling, and typically coupling occurring in a specific region. For example, giving a skeletal and brief overview: at stage one, a cold AMO coincides with increased sea ice extent in the West Eurasian Arctic. At stage two, ice growth has expanded eastward, peaking in the Kara Sea region. The sea ice in the Siberian Arctic is peaking, its effect on the meridional temperature gradient strong, promoting increased zonal flow of large-scale winds, which advect warm air and moisture over the Eurasian continent from the Atlantic and disrupt vertical stratification near the surface and promote high cloudiness, both of which lead to increasing temperatures – greatest at low altitudes and high latitudes. Stage two is where the initial cold signal of the Atlantic in stage one is converted to an atmospheric warming signal. You can see in section four and related figures that the progression continues, next including the Pacific and ice in the East Eurasian Arctic in stage three, and then anomaly trends come to a close in stage four, with cumulative effects on ice, heat flux, atmospheric response, etc. Arctic T peaks here, marking the coming end of the warming regime. Transition to the reverse regime, likely promoted in part by anomalies of Pacific circulations negatively feeds back onto the Atlantic, allow the wave to go around for the reversed climate regime evolution.
I hope this helps. Figure 12 might help in conjunction with figures 3 and 13.
Marcia, one thing I find interesting in figure 3 is the way subsequent positive phases have different index behavior: in the 1910-1940 positive phase the index peaks are rising (relative to what I suppose is normalized numbers), while in the 1970-2000 positive phase they appear to be decreasing.
Is there a simple explanation of what this represents that can help me as I study the text, by providing a starting analogy? Are there hypotheses regarding the reason for this difference?
In the UK (and I think this true of the entire North Atlantic basin) there appeared to be a very marked regional climate shift during 2008. In general terms a reversal of the PJS northward migration, with the PJS often south of the BI, a greater incidence of meridonal synoptic patterns, the ending of our regime of “barbecue summers” and mild winters, replaced with monsoon summers and cold winters, and the cessation of the almost continuous above average montly CET trend (which now appears to be cooling).
So perhaps this was the boundary between stage IV and -1 ?
AK, I find your observation very interesting, too. I noticed the same paired shifts of amplitude in proxy data. I have no explanation to offer. Anyone with ideas?
Well, my default thought was the sun, but now I’ll have to think.
===============
It will not mater what models you use.
If you use data during a warming period to populate your models you will get out of bounds warming forecasts.
If you use well bounded temperature for the past then thousand years to populate your models, you would get well bounded forecasts.
Try to guess which of these you did choose to do.
Try to guess which is really happening.
Looking over some of the comments on this thread is occurred to me we may see a two tracked approach, which of course is a simplification because there are many other tracks.
If the question is, Did we see the CO2 forcings or not? That’s one track. With the other track being, We might see the CO2 but that’s really not the focus here.
I don’t see anything wrong with having two tracks. It’s a diversified approach. Two teams working on the same problem with different approaches. I suppose there are many other reasons why it’s a good idea to have at least two tracks. And we can probably find some problems with having a one track approach.
Does anyone else see what they are doing?
They know they don’t have data to support their alarmism.
They know they will not get data to support their alarmism.
They keep pushing the Alarmist date into the future so actual data that does not support their alarmism does not matter yet.
Now they have pushed it out to 2047.
That is thirty five more years. thirty five plus the current 17 is more than fifty years.
They promised they did not need more than 17 years and now they are demanding 50 years.
Does anyone see a problem here? I do!
Icarus didn’t expect the wax to melt.
============
Judith, and Marcia,
Natural variability is the key to progress in climatology. The simplistic groupthink of climate alarmism has no place in science.
+1
Yes indeed. This is where climate science should have started. But as it is a political exercise it started where it intended to end up – by finding CO2 guilty as charged.
In case this hasn’t been mentioned, throughout most of the world this is known as a “Mexican wave,” having first sprung to prominence there during the 1970 World Cup.
Marcia,
Please ignore some of the sniping comments. Like any natural system, a blog is likely to have varying degrees of noise.
What a fascinating concept and congratulations on publication! I have read your posts and I think I broadly understand the concept. I look forward to reading the paper in more detail. It’s the sort of concept that I can grasp easily as it is close to areas in my line of work.
I have some questions if you don’t mind:
1. Would the relative high extent of antarctic sea ice be a sign of a wave trough compared to the arctic, and might we then expect it decline as the arctic increases? Or am I being too literal with the concept being spatial-temporal?
2. Related to the previous question; is the reason you didn’t cover much of the southern hemisphere due to a lack of proxy data? What about instrumental data, albeit limited? Does what data you have correlate with what you expect?
3. I note that you worked with Tsonis on this, how does this theory integrate with the idea of ‘climate shifts’? Is it complimentary, ancillary? I am imagining higher frequency waves on a lower frequency swell, but I don’t know if that is the right way to think about it.
Agnostic, there is speculation that there is a bi-polar see-saw b/n the Arctic and Antarctic, likely related to the AMOC, which in its traverse across the equatorial region in the Atlantic, carries ocean heat from the Southern Hemisphere to the northern. This does not happen in the Pacific. When AMOC is strong, more heat goes northward; when AMOC is weak, less SH heat is redistributed northward. Downwelling intensities off the Antarctic are further influenced by activity of NINO. You are right that a study of the SH as it pertains to the wave is needed. Data are sparse, but perhaps doable. Worth looking into to!
Here are a few articles related to that ‘see-saw’ that might be of interest:
Severinghaus, Jeffrey P. (26 February 2009). “Climate change: Southern see-saw seen”. Nature 457 (7233): 1093–4. doi:10.1038/4571093a.
Chylek, Petr; Folland, C.K.; Lesins, G.; Dubey, M.K. (2010). “Twentieth century bipolar seesaw of the Arctic and Antarctic surface air temperatures”. Geophysical Research Letters 37: L08703. doi:10.1029/2010GL042793.
Jung, Simon J.A.; et al. (April 2010). “Southern Hemisphere intermediate water formation and the bi-polar seesaw”
Re: point 3. Yes, it was my meeting with Tsonis that kicked off the stadium-wave research. I contacted him with my idea and he took interest. It was a tremendous learning opportunity for me. His climate shifts are further explored in the Wyatt, Kravtsov, Tsonis 2012 paper (WKT: first online in 2011). The ‘synchronizations’ to which they refer can be thought of as strong correlations between four major indices in time. In the WKT piece, higher frequency components of 15 indices are analyzed for cross-correlation. Results of both studies show strong correlations in the 1910s, 1920s, 1930s, 1950s, and 1970s. You are not wrong in visualizing this as higher frequency components influencing, or being influenced by, the multidecadal component.
According to the Tsonis et al. work, when coupling strength increases after synchronizing (in this case, correlating strongly), synchronization is destroyed and a regime shift occurs. When coupling strength decreases post ‘synchronization’, no regime shift. The work by Judy and me relates to this, but is separate. We do note that these ‘Tsonis synchronizations’ (both types) appear to roughly coincide with our ‘stages’ I, II, and III of regime evolution. Only at times that coincide with our stage I (or -I) does a regime shift occur (~1918, 1944, 1976). We (Judy, Tsonis, Kravtsov, and I) have not discussed this, nor have we explored whether our results are two sides of the same coin or not. On the ‘to-do’ list.
I’d appreciate a direct response from Marcia or Judith on the points that I have made in this thread.
I very much support and appreciate their paper even though it is a reworking of propositions already published by me.
However it is only a start.
One next needs to integrate the finding into a more complete climate change description which follows the observations from beginning to end as they alternately cause warming or cooling of the climate system around the basic level of energy content determined by mass, gravity and ToA insolation.
In fact, I have already attempted that and my New Climate Model not only incorporates that ‘stadium’ wave’ as it works through the ocean basins but also places it within an overall climate change description.
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/new-climate-model/
Inter alia:
“It should be borne in mind that internal ocean oscillations substantially modulate the solar induced effects by inducing a similar atmospheric response but from the bottom up (and primarily from the equator) sometimes offsetting and sometimes compounding the top down (and primarily from the poles) solar effects but over multi-decadal periods of time the solar influence becomes clear enough in the historical records. The entire history of climate change is simply a record of the constant interplay between the top down solar and bottom up oceanic influences with any contribution from our emissions being indistinguishable from zero.”
It’s never tasted quite so loud,
The sandwich meat that is a cloud.
========================
Stephen, I have read some of your work and also Nicola Scaffeta’s, and I have long thought there was real merit in these ideas, and the CO2 control knob hypotheses too simplistic.
The idea/concept/paradigm/model of a stadium wave is a good one and helps to grasp the complexity by drawing a clear analogy that is not only familiar and relatable, but helps conceptualise similar processes.
What I particularly like is that they are focussed on describing the natural processes independently of anthropogenic forcing, or in fact forcing of any kind, with the possible nod to the sun as a perturbance that might in fact tempo. In this way, they are visibly not approaching the analysis with an agenda. If there was any forcing it would be superimposed on this natural phenomena, albeit there might be some uncertain kind of influence, and signs are there is not.
The problem with where we are now is that any suggestion of motivation behind an analysis makes it easy for the paper to be discredited by those whose motivation is in the other direction, which isn’t useful for our advancement of science. It’s my belief that side stepping the question of CO2 forcing and simply trying to better characterise other factors, regardless of whether CO2 has any role to play, will lead to a fuller understanding of the climate and thus a better platform from which to view what role manmade emissions does have, if any.
In other words, trying to find another ‘reason’ for why the climate has changed other than CO2 leads to dismissal from those who are convinced it does, without the research being discussed on their merit.
The CO2 control knob has had a Procrustean effect, forcibly fitting phenomena to the paradigm.
Free the science, for the sake of all of us.
===========
Agnostic, agreed.
I very much admire Marcia and Judith for putting their heads over the parapet in this way.
As soon as one starts to properly identify and quantify the scale of natural variability as against the likely effects of our emissions the stable door is kicked wide open.
What did it for me was noting that natural climate variability shifted the jets and climate zones by 1000 miles or more from MWP to LIA to date.
I could not envisage our emissions shifting them by as much as a mile.
The Alarmists must have their feet held to the fire until they can demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt how far our emissions would shift the global air circulation.
About a decade ago I saw a ‘science’ programme pointing to the more zonal jets, saying it was permanent and on going and all our fault.
But I had already noted the trend back towards meridionality around 2000 whilst our emissions kept rising.
Around 2000 a wide range of climate phenomena changed trend and it correlated with the decline from the high peaks of cycle 23 towards the low peaks of cycle 24.
Stephen Wilde
I think Jet stream positions are a fundamental part of the climate conundrum. I think I said to you that during the research for my article in CET it was evident that the position of the jet stream was affecting the climate, most notably with droughts and excessive rain.
tonyb
Stephen Wilde
You say
‘Around 2000 a wide range of climate phenomena changed trend and it correlated with the decline from the high peaks of cycle 23 towards the low peaks of cycle 24.’
I think CET is a reasonable proxy for the historic Northern Hemisphere temperature and it appears to be often a precursor for other areas.
I don’t need to tell you about the decline in our climate and intriguingly that can be traced to 2000.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
What is the nature of the climate phenomena you mention?
tonyb
Looks like the knob has dropped off into Marcia’s hand.
Bravo!
Stephen, your model is very interesting. Our two discussions of cascading events are certainly compatible, but not one in the same. They augment one another. Ideas are hard to pin down. When I go through old writings of mine, I realize “my ideas” long pre-dated my return to formal education. We all find information along the way that we integrate into our developing paradigms – building great ideas upon great ideas. I’ve learned that in the world of science, ‘idea’ means little. It’s a long road from idea to getting it to the next level. I apologize that I had never seen your work before. There seems to be an implication that your idea has been subsumed in the WC hypothesis. I may be misinterpreting, so forgive me if that is the case, but if that is what you are troubled by, please note that the first stadium wave was in publication in 2011; although its formal start began in 2006. And my musings on the linkages prior to that began years before.Our (WC) work here takes away nothing from you or your work. I think you’ve got great points. I hope our work can enhance one another’s.
Okay. A few more comments to your comments. First, I must correct a possible misunderstanding of my own causing. About ‘CO2 changing nothing’. This was brought up in the WUWT blog. I answered it there. I saw it here too. This was taken out of context, but I will take full responsibility for not being precise. We had been talking about possible effects of external forcing on the wave’s behavior. Here and on WUWT I expounded upon my speculations on how the multidecadal tempo of solar variability appears to play a role through frequency entrainment. Explained on other long posts is why that info was not kept in this paper, instead delayed for a future one.
We wondered about what prompted the change in amplitude and slight change in tempo prior to about 1800. Maybe solar, due to frquency entrainment, played a role in setting wave tempo and amplitude. but with changes in output around the LIA, maybe the coupling was too weak and the intrinsic tempo and amplitude of the wave kicked in, decoupling from sun. Speculation for now. But what about that I’ll-composed statement on CO2? Read on.
Tonyb, you ask Why didn’t i look prior to 1700? i had proxy data for enough indices to run the MSSA on index networks, but the longest shared time frame I had access to was for 300 years. Now, how that now infamous CO2 statement was intended to read was within context of the observations of no change in amplitude or tempo of the wave since at least 1850. CO2 emissions have gone up throughout this time. But wave character is pretty consistent throughout. No evidence suggests that CO2 is making any changes (to the stadium wave character) over this increasing linear or quadratic forcing. That was the intended message of that statement. What CO2 is doing to the linear or quadratic T trends is not what this work is about. But few would doubt it is doing nothing. Of course it, along with land use change, impacts climate. Life always has. How much, how fast, and how best to address the presumed answers are questions with more divergent views and NOT ones that this work addresses.
As far as the DM AGW footprint removal, yes, tonyb, they found ngLOD began to diverge from the uncorrected GST in 1930s. Might be worth contacting them.
i am happy to consider your questions in greater depth, tonyb, via email, if I could facilitate your research goals. Regarding the Northern Passage. What I can share from our findings is that the freshwater balance, and therefore the halocline, is largely responsible for the winter time trends of sea ice growth. The change and distribution in halocline character on longterm timescales is pretty consistent with the wave. Studying the figures and diagrams, along with text, might enhance your insight and help your research.
Our goal was to identify proxies, one for each of four stages of climate-regime evolution. Each stage features peak or trough inventories of sea ice in a region. Thus, ideally, we can use these proxies to reveal when these four stages occurred in the past. Some values of proxies are limited temporally. I can give you ideas from unpublished results on what indices you might use to extrapolate back that far. Read the paper. My email is on it. Email me and I’ll share those potential tools.
A shout out to Gary Sharp. I’ll mull over the graphs you sent on the blog a bit more and contact you. Everyone should know, if they don’t already, that it was Gary who got the Klyashtorin/Lyubushin work translated from Russian to English.
Thanks to many of you for the blog tips. I doubt I’ll do this for long, but while questions are plentiful, I’ll keep checking back.
Geoff.
Leif may find the grail of a dampable amplifier here.
=======
Marcia, a very nice job you and Judith did with mechanisms and sequencing. Great job with the puzzle. I expect it will be a hot reference for some time.
Just like that !
Marcia
Thank you. I will contact you by email as suggested.
tonyb
I hope you realize what a joy it is to see an example of what science looks like Marcia. You are a breath of fresh air. I would love to get you in front of the students I get to work with out in the field.
Oops. Geoff Sharp posted the graphs, not Gary.
Quicker nor me. This sun attracts me strangely.
==================
Marcia,
I assume your post was prepared before you saw mine.
You say:
“how the multidecadal tempo of solar variability appears to play a role through frequency entrainment. Explained on other long posts is why that info was not kept in this paper, instead delayed for a future one.
We wondered about what prompted the change in amplitude and slight change in tempo prior to about 1800. Maybe solar, due to frquency entrainment, played a role in setting wave tempo and amplitude. but with changes in output around the LIA, maybe the coupling was too weak and the intrinsic tempo and amplitude of the wave kicked in, decoupling from sun.”
Exactly what I have been saying for years in that the net effect of the various ocean oscillations in each basin (your ‘stadium wave’) modulates the solar effects sometimes supplementing and sometimes offsetting them.
Are you on the cusp of duplicating my New Climate Model ?
To be clear, the solar piece is not in any stadium wave paper. My mention of it here is pure speculation based on trial research.
Regarding duplicating your model: Maybe the points are similar, but no, what you are saying is not what I am saying. I’m simply talking about the possibility that the solar tempo may set the tempo of the wave – frequency entraiment – like an orchestra conductor setting the tempo of the piece played. I’ve said nothing about the net effect of ocean oscillations in each basin modulating the solar effects. And the stadium wave is far more than ocean oscillations in each basin.
But if I understand correctly, there is no central ‘conductor’ (pacemaker, timekeeper, central clock, etc.), and no precise frequency of oscillation, but rather the “wave” frequency is irregular and emerges from the individual frequencies of the component phenomena. Please elaborate if I’m wrong.
Thank you Marcia.
You seem to be suggesting that a 60 year solar variation induces a 60 year waveform within the oceans.
I agree that that does not duplicate my model because it does not deal with the millennial solar cycle which induced the MWP, LIA and current warm period.
Nor does it deal with the upward or downward stepping of temperatures from one positive or negative ocean phase to the next.
On that basis I respectfully submit that I am still ahead of you.
As regards the stadium wave being ‘far more’ than the netted out global effect of all the oscillations in each ocean basis combined, would you care to be specific ?
Stephen, your narrative doesn’t even address the coupled bundle illustrated in figure 4 of WKT2011. They point to the piece you missed. They didn’t have an original find, but no one has summarized it so concisely. I can guarantee you that MD NH solar-terrestrial-climate relations don’t work the way Marcia is speculating. We all have something different to bring to the table…
Hi Paul.
Could you summarise what you see as the implications of that ‘bundle’ and say why it is inconsistent with my overarching concept ?
Thanks.
Stephen, you will find that I have done so elsewhere on this page. Sorry for the scattered approach. It’s all I have time for. With adequate time/resources, I assure you I would do communications radically differently. Regards.
Loehle and Scafetta (2011) describe the stadium wave without calling it that. The entire HadCRUT4 record can be reconstructed with four simple components.
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/loehlescafettawuwtfigures01_page_2.jpg
Two components are harmonic sine waves that run constantly through the record one with period of 20 years and magnitude of 0.1C and the other a 60 year period and magnitude of 0.2C. Another component is a linear trend of 0.1C per century that runs through the record and the last is a linear trend of 0.66C per century that begins in 1950.
The sines are known to be connected with motions in the earth’s core which manifest in ways other than surface temperature fluctuations such as length of day. These core motions have also been associated with gravitational forces caused by the orbital mechanics of gas giant Jupiter.
I’m thus not sure what is new about this paper. Many people, myself included, have simply eyeballed the temperature record (any of them they all show it) since 1850 and seen a 60-year cycle which, if it repeated reliably, was due to roll over from warming to cooling near the beginning of the 21st century. The only question (which still remains) is whether the magnitude of the repeating cycle is less than or greater than anthropogenic warming. The next several years should answer that question.
Note, original work on stadium wave published in 2011. No sine waves used. Look at graphs: RCs not sine waves. Our work: Identification of patterns of variability shared by each index in network. Stadium wave describes the sequential, orderly propagation of a signal through network of synchronized indices, not identification of oscillations.
The stadium wave is a traveling wave. It takes the shape of a sine. There’s an animation of a stadium wave below where the sinusoidal shape is clear.
http://www.physics.louisville.edu/public/courses/phys111/davis/notes/travwaves.html
But thanks anyway for explaining the new part of the paper is basically teleconnections between various physical components.
wrong. the wave is spatio temporal.
scaffetta’s toy model says nothing about ice extent, nothing about drought, nothing about the sequencing and the triggers.
read the paper
write that down
Loehle & Scafetta 2011 touches a nerve there, Steverino?
Let me guess why. Because the four simple “toy” components reproduce the BEST temperature record with high fidelity where the ballyhooed climate models cannot. If a toy model can reproduce BEST I guess that makes BEST an even simpler toy. LOL
Good to see the ‘skeptics’ abandoning their reflexive rejection of models.
And not even a murmur on the invoking of Gaia.
“All models are wrong,” Michael, except when I like what they show.
Really? I see a lot of carping and a lot of: “it’s a good start or it’s interesting” The IPCC said that natural variability is not well understood and more work needs to be done on it. Do you disagree with the IPCC? Because that would make you a denier and an oil-company shill.
Joshua
Sounds like you are talking for IPCC.
Max
The consensus climate models are largely based on conjecture and focusing on GHG and anthropogenic ‘forcings’. Everything else is noise, more or less. That’s where they are very wrong. They model only known knowns and even that poorly, it seems. Atmospheric energy fluxes are complex and maybe not solvable at this point or in the near future.
Furthermore they predict warming and other evidence (oscillations/solar) suggests multidecadal cooling. Correlational evidence can help. There are two important scientific points about correlations. A correlation does not establish causality. The correlation may be due to some other causal factor. Nevertheless, a correlation is useful to make predictions. It makes no difference why the events are correlated, if they vary together, you can use one to predict the other.
huh?
their conclusion depends upon models being wrong. basically wrong models cant reproduce the synchronizing indices.
Here is the sad fact micheal. Models dont get the TIMING (in absolute time), the FREQUENCY, or the AMPLITUDE of known cycles correct. They dont.
They cant. And to handle this we average over multiple runs under the assumption that cycles will integrate to zero.
Since the models cannot get the individual cycles right, they cannot reproduce any synchronization. That’s intuitively obvious and the paper just confirms that.
So, one not need switch attitudes toward models to accept the findings since the findings confirm that models are wrong.
read harder
write that down.
that is all
Marcia: “No evidence suggests that CO2 is making any changes (to the stadium wave character) over this increasing linear or quadratic forcing. That was the intended message of that statement. What CO2 is doing to the linear or quadratic T trends is not what this work is about.”
My bold. I think that is what you meant but did not express earlier, that has caused much discussion Thanks for clarifying.
I see much use of the word “tempo” which I find vague, could you clarify that in more precise, technical language? You seem to have found something but I don’t understand what it is.
Here are a couple of telerconnections you may find interesting;
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=259
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=233
There’s more to CO2 than meets the eye. The AO CO2 link I find surprising at the global level and maybe emphasises the reach of AO.
Also as an alternative to a rather crude linear trend removal in the presence of a recognised quadratic like long term pattern , could I suggest differentiation.
d/dt has a 1/f frequency attenuation so acts as a kind of high pass filter.
d2/dt2 is 1/f^2 and will reduce a quadratic rise to a constant.
Both of these are linear operations that use all the data without inserting (or subtracting) some essentially arbitrary linear model.
They do favour high frequency noise so in some respects decrease signal to noise ratio , this can be countered with filtering.
In figure 3 we see a progression from group I to group IV that covers almost half a cycle of your fundamental pattern . Is that the end of the line? The idea of a stadium wave , I would have thought, was it goes all the way round and repeats.
You also mention the gut somewhere.
Figure 3 leads me to ask: stadium wave or peristalsis ?
That is interesting, the AO/CO2 relationship. I will note that indices such as AO and NAO showed extremely low channel fraction variance of the signal. In other words, variability in AO and NAO due to the ‘wave’ signal was minimal (see channel-fraction variance plot in paper), despite the observation that they co-varied with the other indices. But despite the minimal apparent involvement of AO/NAO in the wave propagation, this point that you present may have significant implications. Kathryn A.Kelly at U. Wash has done a lot of great work on ocean-heat flux from western boundary currents in relation to the winds related to AO. Check out her 2004 series of publications (some w/ Dong). As this decadally varying degree of heat flux from the wbc and extension region appears to play a critical role in connecting regional processes via its influence on the jet, etc, this may be one avenue through which CO2 does have potential to affect the variability pattern of the wave. Ocean heat in wbc and extensions is extremely poorly modeled – a topic Kelly (and others) discuss in detail.
Re: ‘tempo’, in paper’s the usage is “secularly varying trend”.
Stadium wave ‘goes around’ and repeats. See text for more detailed explanation. Note: Groups + I through + IV are followed by Groups -I, etc. In short, we define indices of these groups, but as noted on figure 3, the troughs on plot reflect the negative group values, so to speak.
How does this wave get ‘back around’: Anomaly trends of Pacific circulations (Pacific Circulation Index (PCI)) coincide with AMO. The skeletal sequence goes thusly: -AMO to +AT and +NPGO to +NAO to +NINO to +NPO/PDO to +Arctic T and then +NHT. The basin-scale winds over the Pacific/NA region (PCI) represent anomaly intervals of general flow direction and intensity (related to ALPI, NPO, and indirectly to PDO). PCI coincides with AMO (same polarity). The sequence continues: +NHT followed by +PCI and +AMO, -AT/-NAO, etc…Based on literature, we speculate that the freshwater anomalies generated in the Atlantic per consequence of modified precipitation patterns resulting from the Pacific circulations (work by Latif, Shmittner (see our paper for citations)) may explain, or at least partly contribute to driving this apparent negative feedback that keeps the stadium wave ‘circulating’.
Peristalsis allows a visual of signal propagation, but stadium wave accounts for the continued propagation – i.e. no end…(no pun intended).
Re: removal of CO2 trend via your suggestions would be an interesting addition to this and related studies. Future dabbling. Will keep you posted.
Kathryn A.Kelly’s publications may be found on her page at UW.
Stadium waves and von Kármán vortex sheets: lessons from self-organizing dynamical oscillations
Theodore von Kármán’s vortex sheets are perhaps the single most celebrated example of self-organizing dynamical oscillation in fluid dynamics. Their fame rests upon three foundations:
• Kármán vortex sheets are seen in nature, and
• Kármán vortex sheets are predicted analytically, and
• Kármán vortex sheets are seen computationally.
A key question Wyatt/Curry stadium waves have been observed statistically. What advances are required for stadium waves to be seen computationally and analytically?
A stern lesson from history Wyatt/Curry stadium waves require confirmation from analysis and computation; otherwise they risk being regarded as one more statistics-driven model, of which the climate literature already contains innumerably many … this large corpus of cycle-seeking pure-statistics climate models is (rightly) ignored by most scientists, due to the dismal track record of cycle-seeking science in regard to explanatory and predictive power.
Conclusion In coming years, Wyatt/Curry stadium waves will prosper or perish in proportion to the analytic explanations, computational verifications, and predictive verifications that can be associated to them. The statistical detection is a promising start … but it is *only* a start.
Best wishes for successful passage through the analytic/computational/predictive gantlet of climate-change science, Marcia Wyatt and Judith Curry!
We still don’t know who fan is, and that is a travesty.
I hereby open a campaign to identify fan.
Readers are invited to contribute their knowledge and intuition toward this important task.
Here is my contribution (an educated guess): he is none other than Dr. James Hansen.
No, because Hansen is an excellent writer and can make logical connections. And I don’t believe he is vain enough to praise himself that effusively.
jacobpress
I think David Springer identified him. However if Fan wishes to remain anonymous that is fine provided he does not become an abusive troll.
tonyb
A question on commenting etiquette: if you identify someone, without using insider knowledge, is it fair to post it ? (Not saying that it applies here).
Nowadays corporations, special interests, ideologues, religious fanatics, and abusers all want us to believe that “privacy is theft™“
But is it? Common Sense tells us “no”.
jacobress:: I hereby open a campaign to identify fan.
Let me recommend otherwise. Read his links instead. In this instance, they are very worthwhile.
https://www.google.com/search?q=john+sidles&btnG=Search&rlz=1T4LENN_enUS461US461
tony no I didn’t identify him he was identified on another blog, I forget which, where he was posting comments as “a physicist” and inadvertantly in a blog comment put his email address in the “name” field and his name (‘a physicist’) in the email field. Thus his email address appeared instead of his name in the comment. His email address included his real name and University of Washington’s domain name.
Fanny
I think the proof of the pudding will be empirical (based on real-time observations), rather than theoretical (based on statistical analyses).
If the current “pause” (i.e. cooling) ends imminently and warming resumes, reaching 0.3C to 0.7C by 2035, as IPCC predicts in AR5, then Wyatt/Curry has most likely been falsified.
If the “pause” continues into the 2030s, as predicted by Wyatt/Curry, then the “stadium wave” hypothesis has been corroborated as a plausible explanation for (at least) a significant portion of the past warming and current slight cooling – and, while not falsifying AGW itself, it will most likely have falsified the IPCC hypothesis of CAGW (as outlined specifically in its AR4 and AR5 reports).
Max
Manacker, please keep in mind that the Wyatt/Curry stadium-wave model is entirely silent (AFAICT) in regard to sea-level rise, for which the *only* credible, in-depth, published, scientific explanation (at present) is CO2-driven energy imbalance (which predicts that sea-level rise will continue and eventually accelerate).
If the seas stopped rising for 20 years, that would indeed overturn pretty much all the IPCC5 models. It’s not clear what (if anything) Wyatt/Curry stadium-wave models have to say regarding this possibility.
If the rate of sea level rise does not increase over the next 20 years what will that mean to you?
Stable rates of sea-level rise, sustained in the next 20 years, would mean melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice-caps has not yet accelerated significantly.
Thank you for your question Manacker!
If the seas stopped rising it would be scary indeed for we’d likely be headed into the next ice age. Meantime the CO2 hypothesis has no predictive power either; likely less so than all the others; the main problem being that it is only a heating mechanism: To cause a cooling event you need a massive carbon sink to appear out of nowhere. Consensus scientists wax lyrically about heating events and CO2 but remain silent on cooling events – because they don’t have any useful theory with numbers or timescales; just a collection of contradictory and often unphysical, hand-waves.
“Manacker, please keep in mind that the Wyatt/Curry stadium-wave model is entirely silent (AFAICT) in regard to sea-level rise, for which the *only* credible, in-depth, published, scientific explanation (at present) is CO2-driven energy imbalance (which predicts that sea-level rise will continue and eventually accelerate).”
Sea level rise, Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level,_1870-2008_%28US_EPA%29.png
So I would stadium-wave model is not entirely silent, as one simply needs to compared it, vs the the existing seal level record.
“If the seas stopped rising for 20 years, that would indeed overturn pretty much all the IPCC5 models. It’s not clear what (if anything) Wyatt/Curry stadium-wave models have to say regarding this possibility.”
According to stadium-wave model sea level may pause, but it continue for next 20 year or longer.
I would say unlike global air temperature, the ocean has thousands of years of warming ahead of it. A warmed ocean will warm the air, but not quickly, and not in a CAGW fashion.
Is the long-term rate of SL rise accelerating?
Sea Level Reconstruction 1700-2100
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8117/8619344687_83fbf22c19_b.jpg
The first chart shows a SL reconstruction from 1700 to today. This shows an apparent decreasing SL over the 18thC, shifting in the early 19thC to a long-term rate of rise of 1.7 to 2.0 mm/year since then. The authors postulate an increasing rate of SL rise, following a second order polynomial trend starting back in 1700, but this could just as easily be explained by (the simpler solution of) a declining linear trend until the early 1800’s, followed by an increasing linear trend since then.
20thC Sea Level Trends
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3206/3144596227_545227fbae_b.jpg
The second chart shows that over the 20thC the SL record was marked by significant decadal oscillations in the rate of rise, varying from -1mm/year to +5mm/year, but no apparent acceleration over the period.
The rate of SL rise over the first half of the 20thC averaged around 2.0mm/year and 1.4mm/year over the second half, averaging around 1.7mm/year over the entire 20thC.
Most recently this rate appears to have stayed within the 20thC range at around 3mm/year.
The biggest change occurred in measurement methodology and scope, with the switch from tide gauges (which measure SL at various shorelines, where humans live) to satellite altimetry (which measures the entire ocean except polar regions and coastlines, which cannot be captured by satellites).
(Obviously, as can be seen from the 20thC chart, these two methods give different results.)
The “take-home” from all this is that any claims of “accelerating SL rise due to AGW” should be taken with a large grain of (sea) salt.
Max
Oooh! Oooh! Methodological points! Could you please set out your criteria for analytic explanations and computational verifications?
Theo Goodwin: Could you please set out your criteria for analytic explanations and computational verifications?
The highest standard was set by Newton’s derivation of Kepler’s laws.
More contemporary and pertinent examples can be found in Henk Dijkstra’s books: “Nonlinear Physical Oceanography” and “Nonlinear Climate Dynamics”. Other good examples can be found on Isaac Held’s blog.
Not to mention fomd’s links.
Did somebody hijack Fanny’s login? That was actually rational and insightful (and probably correct). Something’s wrong.
A fan of *MORE* discourse: Kármán vortex sheets are seen in nature, and
Not exactly the same, but vortexes have been seen on the edges of the Gulf Current, and they have been produced by analysis and simulation: “Nonlinear Physical Oceanography” by Henk A Dijkstra, pp 245-253.
In my opinion, this has been your best post ever. I second your message that this statistical analysis is a very good foundation for some dynamic modeler to follow up.
Sensible interpretation of careful exploration is by far the most crucial step on the path to enlightenment. I volunteer to help Marcia improve interpretations. As the interpretations currently stand, I politely caution again (as I have before) that the interpretations are not ready for modeling. For example, the key periods are 6 months, 1 year, QBO, & Schwabe (no “60 year”). There’s something about the way the solar cycle affects circulatory geometry that’s not being understood (AT ALL) by the majority of people speculating (in a manner inconsistent with hard-constrained wind & rotation observations unfortunately) about “60 year” cycles. It’s not yet clear exactly what. It’s hard to tell how much more contributor commentary will be necessary before it’s clear specifically what false assumptions underpin derailing misconceptualization (that untenably demands violation of the laws of large numbers &/or conservation of angular momentum). I’ll keep watching for the exposure of clues… (It would save a lot of time if folks would state their false assumptions upfront, but it seems a lot of the time people make their false assumptions unconsciously.)
Paul Vaughan, ” There’s something about the way the solar cycle affects circulatory geometry that’s not being understood (AT ALL) by the majority of people speculating (in a manner inconsistent with hard-constrained wind & rotation observations unfortunately) about “60 year” cycles. It’s not yet clear exactly what.”
A lot of it is noise. Not system noise, but metric noise. The AMO pattern is almost exactly repeated in the 30N-60N ocean area. That area is 46.8 million square kilometers or about 15% of the global ocean surface. If you convert the absolute temperature to approximately Watts/m-2, the “Global” impact of the AMO and PDO combined is about +/- 0.25 Wm-2. That fluctuation is amplified by land surface temperatures in the same latitude band of about the same area, because the land surface temperatures are at a higher average altitude with a lower average specific heat capacity and the (Tmax+Tmin)/2 method of determining “average” amplifies the variance.
Kind of funny huh? Warm tropical water forced by tides and Coriolis effect into a bottleneck created by a land mass funnel causes a small sensible energy fluctuation that drives folks absolutely nuts trying to figure it out. All the wile the real climate change action is in the southern hemisphere :)
not interested in your attempted obfuscation
“A lot of it is noise.”
On second thought, if you drop just this one quoted sentence, I’m not so offended.
[ :
Cheers!
Paul, you need to read what kind of noise. Surface temperature measured 2 meters above the surface combined with surface temperature measured 5 meters below the surface with a range of temperatures from 35C to -60C ain’t a great metric. It generates a lot of noise.
Dallas, the source of the NH MD wave is KNOWN. Upon 3rd check, you’ve misinterpreted. The musing was about ferreting out concealed false human assumptions, not the already-known cause of the MD NH wave.
btw I’m impressed with your notes about ENSO scrambling. Indeed it’s just the variance either side of the attractor, but Earth’s current geometry (land-ocean distribution) encrypts the simplicity, making it unrecognizable to most. I suggest you brush up on NH MD.
Noise isn’t a problem for well-constrained records. Most people don’t understand aggregation criteria well-enough to realize the sources of the constraints. With the right, carefully-tuned tools, you can see right through even the most severe noise. It’s a simple matter of understanding the hierarchical arrangement of the spatiotemporal constraints. I suspect we’re talking about 2 different things. Such cross-talk is a waste of time…
Paul, ” I suggest you brush up on NH MD.”
I am more into data acquisition. Measurements can lie to you. Because of that the ocean temperature data, sparse as it may be is the more reliable and most easily compared to paleo. Once you get reasonable error margins for the data, then you can take off on fine tuning, but the land surface temperature data while it has repeatable precision, just ain’t got the accuracy for an energy balance hunting for a 1Wm-2 of two over a few decades.
My results are based on SST dallas — no 2mT, so we’ve definitely just had a misunderstanding…
Paul, “My results are based on SST dallas — no 2mT, so we’ve definitely just had a misunderstanding…”
Which data set? I have been using ERSST bands with Reynolds to approximate absolute SST. The souhtern hemisphere prior to 1950 is horrible and both poles include approximates for ice area. Limiting things to 60S-60N helps, but 30S-30N reduces the bottleneck amplification and covers 70% of the ocean surface. The closer you get to the poles you get the more interesting the noise gets.
Dr Curry, and what about the southern hemisphere? Both half worlds are part on one, as you know, so there must be some interaction somewhere, somehow.
I usually avoid reading FMD’s posts but ” von Kármán vortex sheets”
[it’s streets , not sheets, BTW]
Thanks for the links and thanks for making sense for once.
Thanks Greg! “Sheets” and “Streets” both appear in the literature; either way vortex-shedding dynamics can be awesomely scary. Could a CO2-driven stadium wave ever builds to this kind of amplitude? We hope not!
On a kinder, gentler note:
The sound of the wind in the trees …
is the shedding of vortices.
The above poem (by “anonymous”) is for Beth!
So sensible that the emoticons can be ignored.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/10/suicide-rates-high-brazil-tribe
Marcia, congratulations on the publication of your and Judith Curry’s paper. I’m not a scientist, and this stuff is way beyond the limited knowledge I am endeavouring to build on by reading this blog (among others).
But, I can comment on your conduct in this thread, which has been calm, transparent and civil. You say that blogging is not your thing, but I beg to differ. If more scientists engaged with the public about their research in the way that you and Judith do, we would all be much better off.
I can’t comment on the science, but you get an A+ for science communication!
That’s very kind. I hope to live up to your generous characterization. Judy’s style is a great example to follow!
Is the “stadium wave” (personally I prefer to think of such geologic systems as Rube Goldberg mechanisms) strictly a Northern Hemisphere phenomenon?
Also, how do these coupled interactions influence, modify, reduce or enhance feedbacks?
I don’t know about the wave, but the oscillations are very similar.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4nh/plot/hadcrut4sh/plot/hadcrut4tr
Other series too (land, SST…).
Thx. When you blow up some time periods, there are out of phase intervals. Moreover, since these are lumped temperatures, the internal “waves” that may be present within local regions of the NH, SH and tropics are collapsed into one “signal”.
It is doubtful that the ‘wave’ is exclusive to the NH, as processes related to NH circulations directly affect the SH. Your point is well taken. We have not investigated the SH; thus I can only speculate that the SH participates. Data is not as abundant from the SH, but ultimately this should be explored. No doubt.
As far as coupled interactions influence, modify, reduce, or enhance feedbacks, that is a HUGE question. We do attempt to address this quite thoroughly in the discussion in the paper. I urge you to take a peek. If there are aspects that you don’t understand after having read (see section 4) it, then we can try to go through your specific questions.
Thanks. Really appreciate your feedback here and elsewhere. Also, you seem to be catching on to the blogging signal to noise ratio.
MD wave fades moving deeper into SH due to lack of land mass & land impediment to antarctic circumpolar (southern ocean) flow — (need midlatitude zonal land-sea contrast for meridional deflection of westerlies = differential land-sea equator-pole column-integrated-temperature gradient response to solar forcing, easily measured using a simple wavelet tachometer, which detects externally governed universal constraint)
Excellent!
This seems like a very plausible explanation for (at least a major portion of) the Arctic sea ice decline, and the global warming, which has been attributed by IPCC to date principally to AGW.
It seems more plausible at first glance than the IPCC explanation for two reasons:
– It would explain not only the current decline in Arctic sea ice, but also earlier periods of decline and recovery (which are not explained by the AGW attribution).
– The same goes for the earlier multi-decadal period of slight cooling (~1940-1970) and especially for the early 20thC period of rapid warming (1910-1940), which occurred prior to significant human GHG emissions.
– It would explain why only the Arctic sea ice is declining, and not also the sea ice in the Antarctic (which is growing), since the basic mechanism described is limited to the Northern high latitudes (and not global, as is AGW).
The authors write:
This will be “the proof of the pudding”.
If the “current pause in global warming” does extend into the 2030s, then Wyatt and Curry have identified the most likely “culprit”.
If the “current pause” reverses imminently, resulting in “a 0.3 to 0.7 degree Celsius rise in global mean surface temperature from 2016 to 2035”, then IPCC’s AGW hypothesis is more likely to be the reason.
We’ll just have to wait and see.
But in the meantime, while we are still uncertain that AGW is causing the warming and Arctic sea ice loss, let’s do more work to reduce uncertainties, but hold off on any costly mitigation actions that may be a total waste of resources and effort.
Max
The Hockey Team should hang heads in shame. Repent! Repent!
Actually, this may offer many of them an excuse to jump ship. At least conditionally.
I think it would be great if they abandoned their current ship and came aboard with Judy and Marcia and others who share their ken. Researching patterns in climate based on data have the potential to build a solid base for modeling. The problem with current models is that researchers have modeled without an understanding of the parts and interactions of same of the climate. Understand how the system is built before you jump to a model.
Making waves in the climate
debate,
another brick in the wall
falls.
Congrats to Marcia and Judith
on publication of your paper.
Marcia
Let me add my congratulations and thanks to the many that have already been expressed here.
Max
97% of alarmists are not impressed with the Stadium-Wave hypothesis. They are sticking with the Arm-Wave thing. According to Dana Nutticelli. Watch for the post on his goofy Guardian blog.
Wyatt/Curry stadium wave study is surely interesting and important. It clarifies and put together the work of several teams that have provided climate data and highlighted the existence of large oscillations such as the quasi 60-year oscillation observed in the climate.
The result is important because the models used by the IPCC do not reproduce this variability and, consequently, their interpretation of climate changes need to be severely revised.
A also Wyatt stated above, what is missing in Wyatt/Curry stadium wave study is what causes it in the first place.
As also some readers have noted above, several authors have noted this wave in the data. And numerous papers have been already published on similar topic. For example, David Springer cite Loehle and Scafetta (2011).
Indeed, I published much on the topic (about 20 works) since 2009 where on February I presented my results at a seminar at the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington
http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/vwpsw/360796B06E48EA0485257601005982A1#video
and later in 2010 at the 12th Japanese-American Kavli Frontiers of Science (JAFoS) Symposium organized by the U.S. National Academy of Science (NAS) and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS), Japan.
iframe=true&width=80%25&height=80%25
And every year I presented these results at the AGU meetings.
However, there is not just the 60-year modulation. There are other specific cycles as well (decadal, bidecadal, secular and millennial ). These are discussed in details in my papers. And these cycle can be easily recognized in specific solar/astronomical and lunar oscillations which points toward the astronomical origin of these cycles.
Full models have been developed to reconstruct the temperature records based on these oscillations and full comparison with both CMIP3 and CMIP5 models have been already done.
For those interested in knowing more about this research, please visit my web-site
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/#astronomical_model
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/#astronomical_model_1
and also read my latest work
Scafetta, N. 2013. Discussion on climate oscillations: CMIP5 general circulation models versus a semi-empirical harmonic model based on astronomical cycles. Earth-Science Reviews 126, 321-357.
DOI: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2013.08.008
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825213001402
My papers can be downloaded also from my web-site.
Another Dukie.
Between you and Robert Brown, I am beginning to believe all those Blue Devils I’ve had to suffer may actually have a point.
In all seriousness, I consider you both to be a testament to the quality of Duke’s faculty.
Amen to that, brother. Duke is one of the three vertices of “Research Triangle” out of which has come innumerable advances in my own field of computer science.
http://www.cs.unc.edu/cms/about-us/the-research-triangle-area
A cherry picked anecdote:
The Nenana Ice Classic has interested me, as it is a continuous record since 1917 of the breakup of ice in the Tanana River near Nenana, Alaska.
In the 1980s and 1990s the trend was of breakups earlier in the year, and acivists pointed to that as evidence of AGW.
The tipping point was 1998, after which the trend has been later ice breakups, at a rate of about half of a day per year. This year the breakup was on May 20, a tie for the latest breakup date. The activists have been silent.
My eyeball sees a correlation between the day of breakup and Bob Tisdale’s graph of North Pacific SST.
I am anticipating the reversal of Arctic sea ice alarmism. Someday.
LOL … heck, why not pick a much BIGGER cherry, Don B?
Shrinking ice worries Great Lakes scientists
Winter ice cover has decreased 70% since 1970s
Fan, I live 25 miles south of Lake Erie, and yes our winters have been very mild lately, and I heard stories from my Dad of driving a car on the ice in the 50’s.
But the weather this summer reminds me of the weather of my childhood the 60’s and 70’s, not the 90’s and 00’s. Living in an area that get’s both sides of the jet stream (warm humid tropic air, and cool dry arctic air), we had a lot more cool air this year than we’ve had in a long time.
Let see how the ice does this winter. Personally I think we’ll have more early snow this year, and winters going to be colder than it has for a long time. Which should put the ice cutter to work.
A fan of *MORE* discourse: LOL … heck, why not pick a much BIGGER cherry, Don B? Shrinking ice worries Great Lakes scientists
Winter ice cover has decreased 70% since 1970s
If you have read all of Marcia Wyatt’s responses, you know that the ice shrank previously in the 30s, and it shrank before that as well. She referred to the 30s shrinkage as part of a 1930s discontinuity. Besides her post above, you can find alarmist newspaper reports from the 30s on the web.
Once the government turns their servers back on, you can 40+ years of arctic ice maps here http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/arctic/rediscover/dmi_sea_ice_maps/
Oh, I should have noted that the ice maps are from 1895-1939 and then some coverage of the 40’s and 50’s.
Cherry-picking indeed.
What you deniers have to learn is statistical analysis. You take a set of lakes such as you can find on the Minnesota DNR web site. Track the ice-out dates over ranges of latitude and then try to make sense of the huge variance intrinsic in such a measure as ice-out day.
Here is how to do it right:
http://contextearth.com/2013/09/15/ice-out/
The last year was quite late, but the year before was quite early. However, the long term trends say the calendar day ice-out is getting statistically earlier every year.
For several years the most plausible overall picture of the temperature development has been that it’s a combination of AGW and natural variability strong enough to cancel the warming over the last decade. It has also been known that a component of the variability seems to have a full period of about 60 years although the evidence has not been strong on any real periodicity or even quasi-periodicity.
What’s very interesting in this paper is that it present evidence for a succession of changes in various indices that seem to indicate that the variability has, indeed, properties typical for periodic phenomena where change in some properties drive changes in the next property and that the chain of such influences closes.
In my view that’s not to the least inconsistent with the main results of AR5 as the recent estimates of TCR and further of ECS allow for such a role of natural variability in the temperature development. How far to the future we should wait before the warming trend becomes visible again is a further question. My own guess is that we don’t need to wait for long to see some warming again, but reaching the maximal rate related to the next positive contribution of natural variability could take longer.
The effect of AGW has grown while the rate of cooling due to the natural variability may be close to its maximum. That leads me to expect that AGW will soon be the stronger influence. There are, however, also other factors that cause shorter term variability, and these factors may cause significant surprises in either direction in the shorter term trends.
All the above is speculative, and only what appears most plausible to me. Hopefully research like that of the present paper will allow in time for more informed guesses, if not real predictions.
Pekka
When you write- “The effect of AGW has grown while the rate of cooling due to the natural variability may be close to its maximum.” I congradulate you for adding “All the above is speculative, and only what appears most plausible to me.”
There is much to learn and it is funny to read the comments here from people so certain that their personal pet theory is positively correct.
Pekka
Your reasoning is sound.
It could well be that AGW will soon become the stronger warming signal than the cooling signal from natural factors.
It could also be, as Wyatt and Curry have suggested, that this might not occur until the mid 2030s (or two decades from now), as a result of the described “stadium wave” phenomenon.
We’ll just have to wait and see.
And, even if there is a delay of two more decades before warming resumes, this would not falsify AGW (nor do the authors claim this).
It simply raises serious doubts concerning CAGW based on high climate sensitivity (as outlined by IPCC in its AR4 and, more recently, AR5 reports).
Max
PS I should have written: ” your reasoning is im-pekka-ble”
Excellent points Pekka. I do like that the “stadium-wave” hypothesis is falsifiable in a fairly short period. It could also be the case that the characteristics of the wave could be impacted by anthropogenic factors, and thus the general hypotheses could be right but difficult to confirm as the Earth systems undergo such rapid change.
Pekka Pirilä October 11, 2013 at 10:21 am says:
“For several years the most plausible overall picture of the temperature development has been that it’s a combination of AGW and natural variability strong enough to cancel the warming over the last decade.”
No such combination of unrelated tendencies can be stable enough to last for 33 years. That is the combined total length of the no-warming period when the eighties and the nineties are added. That is 33 out of 34 years green-house-free. The extra year belongs to the super El Nino. Basically, there is no hope of resuscitating the IPCC version of the greenhouse effect. Ferenc Miskolczi predicted this in 2007 but was ignored. In 2010 he had experimental proof. Using NOAA database of weather balloon observations that goes back to 1948 he studied the absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere over time. And discovered that absorption had been constant for 61 years while carbon dioxide at the same time went up by 21.6 percent. This means that he addition of this substantial amount of CO2 to the air had no effect on the absorption of IR by the atmosphere/ And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed. This has consequences. First, it cuts the legs right out from under the claim that greenhouse warming exists. Secondly, all doomsday predictions of warming that depend on the greenhouse effect are invalid. And third, any emission control laws passed with the aid of such predictions were passed under false premises and should be voided.
Mora et al. (which was cited in an earlier thread) project the timing when climate “departs from recent variability” as 2047 if no mitigation actions are undertaken, and 2069 if actions are implemented.
The authors add:
In its first summary report (1990), IPCC predicted that the enhanced greenhouse effect was not yet apparent, due to uncertainties relating to natural variability, but that this should occur by 2047, at the latest. This was defined as the date when the “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly” (HadCRUT3 at the time) would exceed that of 1990 by 0.5ºC.
The anomaly was around 0.25ºC in 1990, so this would mean that the enhanced GH effect would be apparent when this indicator reached 0.75ºC.
This has not yet happened. We are now at around 0.45ºC, so an added 0.3ºC would be required in order to clearly identify the enhanced GH signal.
If IPCC are right, and the current “pause” will reverse itself at the end of this year, back to the observed warming trend (0.11ºC per decade since 1990), it will take 27 years for this to happen, i.e. by 2041, or a bit sooner than predicted by IPCC in 1990.
If Wyatt and Curry are right, and the current pause (or slight cooling at 0.05ºC per decade) continues until 2035, it will take until 2072 until the “magic number” is reached and we have a clear enhanced greenhouse signal.
This, plus the Mora et al. conclusion that mitigation would only delay things by 21 years, make their conclusion on the “urgency of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions if climates potentially harmful to biodiversity and society are to be prevented” sound a bit silly to me.
Have I got something wrong here?
Max
“Fig. 4. M-SSA spectrum of expanded stadium-wave network shown in figure 3. Error bars are based on North et al. (1982) criterion, with the number of degrees-of-freedom set to 40, based on decorrelation time of ~2.5 years. Red-dashed lines in panel represent the 95% spread of M-SSA eigenvalues based on 1000 simulations of the 15-valued red-noise model (1), which assumes zero true correlations between the members of the 15-index set.”
Something I was recently alerted to was that the appropriate error model for ice area is pink, not red because its 2D variable.
I was able to confirm this since I was looking at the sub 60 days periodogram of ice area and was wondering why 1/f (red) noise did not really fit. OTOH, 1/f^2 was a perfect fit to the very broadband noise. I’ll try to find a graph of this.
It hit me that maybe the same thing applies to these gridded temp time series. They are effectively a measure of the energy of an area of ocean. That in turn is the integral of all incoming and outgoing fluxes (be it radiative , convective or whatever). These are also areal measurements.
If we measure the temperature of an object it is a simple scalar quantity but what SST gridded temperature is measuring is actually an areal quantity.
Pink was certainly correct for ice area, would it be the correct error model for gridded SST ?
Red noise is based on a first order auto-regressive model : AR1 where each value is the previous value plus a white noise increment. Its red because it’s the integral of white noise. To make such an AR1 dataset stationary we can take d/dt This removes the random walk and red noise becomes white again.
Pink noise requires second diff to render it stationary, unbiased white noise.
A visual example may help:
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/hadsst3_median-triple1.png
Doesn’t that mean that a quadratic rise could be the result of a random walk in the presence of pink noise? That could have some very interesting implications.
Now Mosh’ seems well informed on this kind of stuff perhaps he will comment if he’s still following.
I’m doing what I always do. start back at the data, then walk it forward.
BTW hat tip and thanks to Tim Shannon for pointing out my error on ice noise model.
Getting my colours mixed up. Red is 1/f2 ; pink 1/f (per dimension) so 1/f2 for 2D. So red is probably correct for 2D temp data. Perhaps someone better as stats can comment.
My point is that it needs second diff to render it stationary, a typical precondition for spectral analysis (eg like SSA). A linear detrend won’t do this correctly.
This comes back to Pekka’s early point that a quadratic detrend would be better. That would seem roughly equivalent, though care is needed imposing assumptions.
It also raises the question that a random walk would be quadratic unless I’m mistaken.
Fan, we did analyze sea-level rise and its acceleration in our work. We culled it out b/c too many variables became potentially confusing and distracting of message. We had very interesting results regarding the ‘secularly varying’ trend of the SLR and SLR acceleration and its apparent participation in the wave.
The MD wave in SLR doesn’t come out cleanly with linear detrending (which makes false assumptions).
Did your ‘secularly varying’ trends in SLR resemble something like this:
https://sites.google.com/site/climateadj/multiscale-trend-analysis—hadcrut4
A ~60yr cycle was apparent the both the plots of hadcrut4 and gmsl. The gmsl data was taken from Jevrejeva et al (2006). I don’t believe the recent Church and White data aligns as nicely.
AJ, I did use the Jevrejeva et al data, as you suspected. I became aware of the dataset after reading one of Scafetta’s recent papers (2013) on oscillations in SL. You probably know this, but for those that might not, while Jevrejeva et al.’s data is presented in their 2008 paper as globally representative, the three sites whose measurements were used come from the North Atlantic, if I remember correctly. This was not an issue, and does not distract from their argument, but a point worth keeping in mind when attempting to dissect the dynamics at play.
The 60-year pattern is definitely there, as Scafetta showed, but the stadium wave signal was weak in the SLR. Variance in the SL acceleration was strong. The negative SLR co-varied with Group I; negative SL acceleration with ALPI in Group III. We chose not to include the index. While interesting, it was not crucial to our hypothesis.
Btw, very interesting work you’ve done, shown on that link.
Thanks Marcia… if you don’t like the available sea level data, you can always roll your own:
https://sites.google.com/site/climateadj/nh-sea-level-reconstruction
FYI you are cited
http://www.technology.org/2013/10/11/stadium-waves-explain-lull-global-warming/
from
http://phys.org/news/2013-10-stadium-lull-global.html
it seems that they interpret your proposal as an explanation for the pause, not as a questioning on the amplitude of glowal warming…
Taleb call that “history being written by the losers”… Pravda called information.
Pingback: Andrew Orlowski: Boffins find MEXICAN WAVE pattern in random climate wobbles | Tallbloke's Talkshop
Marcia,
I have questions about Frolov 2009. #http://wdc.aari.ru/datasets/d0005/txt/
appears to be ice extent, but that table of data refers to this collection as
also containing SAT.
Their ‘SAT’ refers to mean annual surface air temperature in the zone from 70 to 85 degrees N for the years 1900 to 2007
yes, looking at the data files, Its unclear what SAT is.
Some notes to explain the data set would help as well as headers. I know it’s not yours, Dr. Wyatt.
Steve, I apologize for not answering the actual question you asked. I did to you what I don’t like people to do to me! So sorry. I went to that link tonight and was embarrassed to see it was only the ice extent. Mea culpa. Personally, I got the data directly from one of the scientists at AARI. I later purchased their book, where it is given in the appendix. I have sent the data collection to Judy. You can email her or me for that document. I apologize!
The way the data were treated was specifically to extract the coherent part of the collective signal. We do not get a quantitative assessment of how much of the variance is accounted for in this way as far as I noticed. It may be quite small, which would reduce the importance of the result.
Regardless, the fact that a signal must emerge from the data because of the way the data was treated does not explain the extremely smooth curves. The paper implicitly acknowledges that it is the low frequency of these curves that is the core result, and one that might not be expected a priori.
The 5% chance of obtaining the result is perhaps something of a green jellybean – http://xkcd.com/882/ – presumably for instance the southern hemisphere data doesn’t show a comparable oscillation or we’d have heard about it. And perhaps some other indices were tried and not shown.
Still, the smoothness of the curves is striking enough to require some explanation.
What would McIntyre say? I am not ready to rule out an artifact of the processing. It would be nice if the entire calculation, from raw data to displayed curves, were available online for inspection and replication.
The method itself seems like it may have broad application, so that’s another reason to publish the code.
I am concerned by
“… Modeled results are often invoked to guide projected climate trends, yet WP found no
680 decadal to multidecadal-scale hemispherically propagating signal in networks of indices
681 simulated from data generated by runs of the CMIP3 suite of models, leading to the inference
682 that 21st-century model simulations may not accurately capture dynamics necessary to
683 reconstruct stadium-wave behavior.”
Can I infer that you looked at 21st century CMIP runs, not 20th century ones?
Clearly, one of the first things to look for here is whether what you have found is simply the departure of twentieth-century forcing from linear-with-time. To compare with 21st century simulations without looking at 20th century simulations seems to me to avoid that issue.
The channel fraction variance reflects the degree to which the ‘wave’ signal accounts for each index’s variability. See figure 5 of manuscript. Discussion included in section 3.
Earliest analysis worked with raw indices, first smoothed five-year. Then replaced with plots using 13-year. The ‘propagation’ was evident. The next step was to assess if MSSA could identify patterns of co-variability shared by all indices in a given network.
The results showed no patterns of co-variability among the collected indices at time scales less than this multi-decadal time scale. I can see about posting some of my raw-data plots. Give me a little time on that though (this blogging stuff is time consuming!!!). I’ll make a note-to-self.
No, looked only at CMIP3 20th century runs (and some to 1850). The purpose was to duplicate all methods in WKT2012, using identical indices, to see if results b/n the two studies were the same. We used runs that included CO2 increases and runs that were ‘pre-industial’, with no CO2 added. No propagation signal in any. No sense in extrapolating to 21st century if 20th century models don’t mimic what is found in instrumental data. No avoidance.
So the published plots include 13-year smoothing? That makes the smoothness far less surprising.
@ mtobis (@mtobis) (October 11, 2013 at 4:15 pm)
NO. You seem awfully eager to deliberately obfuscate & misunderstand. You clearly don’t understand how MSSA leverages CLT in multiple dimensions to avoiding overfitting. I’m willing to assert based on your comments that you are making FALSE assumptions not only about the structure of the data BUT ALSO about the structure of random data. Note to others: If you’re capable, stand up firmly to people like this who put forth challenges based on ignorance. For example, the data are available and the results are easily reproduced using other methods. Strategy Tip: These people who BEG FOR CODE clearly give away their functional innumeracy and lack of independence. They invest in harassing others orders of magnitude more time & effort than it would take to just sit down and do the calculations themselves. They rudely demand SPOONFEEDING instead of rolling up their sleeves and getting to work independently, just like lazy-*sses who always begged for fluid mechanics assignment answers in undergrad instead of getting the work done themselves. Keep withholding the code as it guarantees the exposure of deep ignorance & cluelessness. Then watch them try all kinds of administrative tactics (e.g. engineering journal rules demanding code) and think about why all the time-consuming politics that goes into setting that up seems more efficient to them than taking 20 minutes to do the calculations themselves… (they’re NOT ABLE, so they have to resort to leveraging DARK administrative/social/political extortion)
All this just distracts from the more worthwhile & interesting topic that should be up for discussion & revision, which is sound interpretation of the stats, something I have NOT seen here yet…
Paul>
” For example, the data are available and the results are easily reproduced using other methods.”
Wrong.
Here is a link to the paper
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/stadium-wave.pdf
please see table 1 line 1053
please see the sixth entry
(Arctic T)
Arctic surface
temperature anomalies
Mean annual surface air
temperature (SAT): 70 to
85ºN for 1900-2007
####################################
NOW, look at the source.
Frolov et al. (2009) personal communication Smolyanitsky
http://wdc.aari.ru/datasets/d0005/txt
go to the link for SAT.
look at the files.
Tell us where SAT is. none of those files goes back to 1900.
Further, they look like monthly data of ice extent not annual SAT
here is one file
http://wdc.aari.ru/datasets/d0005/txt/kara_all.txt
################
So Paul V did you check whether the data was IN FACT available?
the very first check I did shows that something is amiss. maybe I made a simple mistake. Please point me to the arctic SAT and point me the evidence that the data you point to was in fact the data used.
I have a question into the author. we shall see.
Bottom line. Science depends upon building on other peoples work.
The most EFFECTIVE way of documenting what you did is posting code and data. Even links to data as you can see are ineffective.
Further, one of the tricks of climategate was Phil Jones writing ONE THING and having code that did something else. He could and did complain that McIntyre was wrong because Mcintyre could not reproduce his work. But he knew why steve couldnt do it.
In short, words about what you did or did not do is not science.
Steven, you’re looking for a conspiracy where none exists. I don’t have time for your romanticized notions of long, drawn-out committee tie-ups. You should need no more than 20 minutes to verify multivariate NH coherence. Like usual, you’re up to nothing other than some kind of strangely twisted obfuscation. Let’s go back to ignoring each other’s comments to avoid a socially intractable civil blow out. I won’t tolerate social injustice.
Paul
“Steven, you’re looking for a conspiracy where none exists. I don’t have time for your romanticized notions of long, drawn-out committee tie-ups.
1. Huh, I said nothing about conspiracy.
2. You made a false statement. The data is not available. at least
at the location indicated by the paper.
3. Admit you didnt even look.
“You should need no more than 20 minutes to verify multivariate NH coherence. Like usual, you’re up to nothing other than some kind of strangely twisted obfuscation. Let’s go back to ignoring each other’s comments to avoid a socially intractable civil blow out. I won’t tolerate social injustice.”
Wrong. I am checking through the paper because I am interested in the data sources. Especially new sources. You made a mistake. You did not check before you made a stupid comment. You should know better, but you dont.
With regards to the analysis, the first order of business is to determine whether the work described was actually the work done. This starts with getting the data.
Again my patience with your distortion has expired.
You’re talking about one thing.
I’m talking about another.
STOP misrepresenting.
Marcia’s work goes back YEARS. When I first saw WKT2011, I already knew figure 4 was solid BECAUSE I HAD ALREADY DONE THE ANALYSES MYSELF using different, but roughly equivalent methods.
“What would McIntyre say? I am not ready to rule out an artifact of the processing. It would be nice if the entire calculation, from raw data to displayed curves, were available online for inspection and replication.”
I agree. It would also be cool to actually do some sort of animation as I’m having a hard time visualizing the wave.
mosh
I’m glad you said that as I thought I was the only one thinking that an animation would greatly enhance the work.
tonyb
yes, the layout of the paper made it hard for me to follow. (graphs at the end)
and its not that visualizing would prove anything to me, its just easier to understand.
Mosh
It’s like the difference between seeing music notes on a page and actually hearing the music.
An animation or two would really enhance this most interesting piece of science
Tonyb
mtobis, no. the MSSA was done on raw data that were linearly detrended and then normalized. The first phase of analysis (i.e. years ago) involved filters – first a five year, then a 13-year. Results indicated that the idea was worth pursuing. That is when the methodology went to MSSA on the raw, detrended data. No double smoothing!!!!!
oh! and I just replied to yours above on the next entry down. Wish I’d seen this first. Thanks for that tip. I’ll repeat what I said (somewhere else, not sure where…)
No the data were not smoothed prior to MSSA application. The smoothing applications were my first-order analysis (done years ago). When results were promising, I collaborated with the Kravtsov/Tsonis team and through their teaching and guidance, moved to more rigorous stat apps and used MSSA on raw detrended data.
I agree, the manuscript format is difficult to read. I am sorry for that, as I’d like it to be easier for you to make sense of the material. Maybe you could copy/paste the figures from the posted manuscript onto a blank word document and save on your computer. That way you could access as you read through the text. The pdf of the publisher’s version can be downloaded. It does cost thirty-some dollars, but this is due to the copyright laws. Sorry.
They will NOT be able to do a realistic MAP animation, so this is a GOOD question as it will FORCE higher-level quantitative awareness in anyone paying duly careful lucid attention to aggregation criteria…
Fun question. Should be entertaining watching for a revealing answer…
===
I dare the authors to try to produce a realistic MAP ANIMATION of the ‘stadium wave’.
===
I volunteer this provocation for the benefit of everyone.
Steve, You are right about the Arctic T data. Tonight I realized the inadvertent and embarrassing omission. I have addressed this in a few places already, but I’ll mention again that I have sent Judy the document of data that I received directly from AARI. You can request it from her or contact me for a copy. My apologies.
presumably for instance the southern hemisphere data doesn’t show a comparable oscillation or we’d have heard about it.
The IPO is the coupled oscillator that effects both hemispheres in the Pacific.
http://www.teara.govt.nz/files/g-7788-enz.gif
The thinking is the inverse actions of the Antarctic gravitational pumps is the primary driver of the Hiatus in T both in the past and the future.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00548.1
The gravity of the hiatus,is that gravity is the rectifier.
MD wave fades moving deeper into SH due to lack of land mass & land impediment to antarctic circumpolar (southern ocean) flow — (need midlatitude zonal land-sea contrast for meridional deflection of westerlies = differential land-sea equator-pole column-integrated-temperature gradient response to solar forcing, easily measured using a simple wavelet tachometer, which detects externally governed universal constraint)
Pingback: Tractable Science and Climate Change Morality | evilincandescentbulb
Harold and Stephen, I can’t find a reply symbol next to your posts of this morning, so I’ll answer here:
Harold, you are right in this regard, we have not identified a central ‘conductor’; although, as you have seen in my posted speculations, entrainment by an external forcing with a similar rhythm and appropriate coupling strength with a component or components of the climate network may be able to nudge the intrinsic oscillatory nature of the climate system. For entrainment to work, the oscillators being entrained must be self-sustained oscillators. So we could have a collection of self-sustained oscillators, which, if isolated, might have a time scale of variability that differs from what it has when interacting with other self-sustained oscillators. Ultimately, they synchronize (match rhythms). If the external oscillator can entrain, the entire network could have its time scale of variability nudged faster or slower. That would be the conductor. It seems plausible that the weak solar signal at approximately 60 years, as discussed frequently in this post, could be that conductor. But, I cannot say. In our studies, we found the matter of data set differences to add complexity that was unanticipated. Scafetta was consulted on this. He was unclear too. At that point, we decided it best not to go down that road until we understood our data sets, and what aspects of solar output they captured, to a greater degree.
The wave frequency has been consistent since ~ 1850 according to my proxy analysis. Why the ‘tempo’ was slightly faster prior to that time (while amplitude lower), I cannot answer.
And Stephen, I am not suggesting that a 60-year solar variation induces a 60-year waveform within the oceans. I do not know how the solar piece, if indeed it is involved (assume yes; sure about it, not at all), couples to the system. Judy and I had hunches with the phasing of the solar model aligned with that of a certain grouping of indices. Then I tried the geomagnetic ak index. Different phasing, same ‘tempo’. Then I tried the Hoyt/Schatten model, a completely different phasing, same ‘tempo’. Thus, until it can be determined what the solar models are capturing (i.e. why they differ), this issue of how it might couple to the ‘wave’ network and therefore potentially entrain its frequency, is something not feasible. So I can’t answer this part of your question.
And kudos to you on your being ahead. Not a worry.
And last, re: the netted out global effect point: If our speculation on entrainment of frequency is ever testable and turns out to be a possibility, then we will have only assigned a ‘pace maker’s’ role to the sun. We would have no conclusions on the oceans enhancing solar radiative forcing through their oscillations. Much of the temperature change we detect involves the interplay with sea ice extent, ocean-heat flux as related to sea ice extent, and winds, all related to oceans and atmosphere.
Marcia
If you want to make a reply, you go to that specific post and carry on scrolling upwards until you see the first available ‘reply’. (which might be some way above)
Press on that and make your answer in the dialog box which will then ‘nest’ in the right place under the post you want to reply to.
tonyb.
Marcia Wyatt, given the many, subtle, nuanced choices that are associated to your cycle-fitting methods, here is some practical advice:
This is the common-sense reason why mechanistic dynamical analysis and computational simulation of stadium waves is an essential next step for “stadium wave” climate science.
Conclusion To prosper in the long run, stadium-wave climate modelers must collaborate with analytic fluid dynamicists and with computational modelers, with the long-term objective of exhibiting stadium-wave dynamics in the broadest and most robust context feasible.
This argument would be more convincing if the existing “causal” simulations accurately (or approximately) reproduced the cyclic and quasi-cyclic spatio-temporal behaviors found in the data. But they don’t, by all accounts.
The Mayans had acausal (or incorrect causal) models for predicting the appearance of heavenly objects over multi-decadal periods. Yes, they were “lucky” that their pattern finding turned out to identify actual stable behaviors that today we mostly think we can explain. But it would have been pragmatically stupid to tell a Mayan priest that without a sound dynamical model of the heavens he shouldn’t schedule a festival on a given date.
Thanks Marcia that is clear.
In fact I think you will find that the 60 year periodicity is not solar related whereas a longer term multi-centennial one is.
That is how to get the upward or downward temperature ‘stepping’ from one negative or positive phase to the next within your 60 year periodicity.
Also, the longer periodicity in the background accounts for the long term changes from MWP to LIA to date whilst acknowledging that ocean temperatures ultimately control air temperatures.
I think the 60 year periodicity which constitutes your wave is an internal ocean phenomenon caused by the initial ENSO signal resonating through all the ocean basins. Your finding that it manifests itself as a stadium wave is new and useful. That happens to be form taken by the net effect of all the ocean oscillations combined. I suspect it takes that form as a result of the Earth’s rotation.
As regards Arctic sea ice extent I suggest you consider that the effects of ENSO events filter through to the Arctic Ocean about 10 years or so later.
You might have noted that the 2007 melt was 10 years after the 1997/8 El Nino and the 2012 melt about 10 years after the 2002/3 El Nino.
There are currently no more El Ninos in the pipeline.
My main reassurance from your earlier comment is that your findings are not inconsistent with my overview.
Roy Spencer is about to publish work about global albedo which he says is not inconsistent with it either.
I am hoping that what will happen is that over time a series of new papers will produce findings that, taken together, support the cascade of events that I have described.
Although your paper focuses on a lot of detail I think the main thrust of it is exactly what I hoped for.
“I think you will find that the 60 year periodicity is not solar related”
It is to the extent that the internal resonances produced by a fluid covered spinning sphere harmonise with the longer and shorter solar periodicities at that 60 year frequency. The Hale cycle beats with the half period over which you alternately get 2pos+1neg and 2neg+1pos solar cycles to produce a roughly sixty year periodicity for the ocean oscillations.
22×33/(33-22)=66 = AMO.
Hi Rog.
I can go with that.
I was thinking about asking your opinion on the point at your blog.
One feature of my model is that provided the cascade of events which I describe is correct then others can slot in their findings about causation as necessary.
I see it as a template, a basic framework, rather than a completed product.
It describes the inter-relationships of parts of the system taken from a lifetime of observations.
Although I claim to have narrowed the primary driver to solar effects on ozone quantities and cloudiness you are free to ascertain whatever it is that causes those solar variations in the first place which is where some of your ideas can be slotted in.
Hi Stephen. I think that the merry band of outcasts, you, me, Erl Happ, Judith and Marcia, Paul Vaughan and Ian Wilson, we’ll crack this one fairly soon now. The numbers are adding up nicely, and the hindcast for the last 9000 years is looking good. 974 and 208 are strogly represented in the 14C and 10Be proxies, and work well in our ltest model too.
R.J. Salvador’s planetary-solar model is looking especially good.
Note, too, TB, that the shape of the peak of the solar cosmic rays alternates between rounded and flattened in each solar eleven year cycle, leaving each phase of the PDO with two of one type and one of the other, and the predominant one alternates, providing a possible mechanism for alternate dominance of Las Ninas and Los Ninos.
Leif Svalgaard calls this a second order effect, and he’s probably right.
=====================
Thanks Kim. I think we’ve found the basis of the Ohl Geshnyev(sp?) rule too. It’s to do with the torque applied to the solar surface layers by Jupiter acting on the tidal bulge produced by Earth and Venus. The phase is correct and the periodicities match. Ian Wilson has been developing the model.
Congratulations tallbloke! You have amply confirmed the predictions of Mr. George D. Brunham, of Barnesbury (1886)
Also you have confirmed Dr. A. Marques’ Scientific Corroborations of Theosophy: A Vindication of the Secret Doctrine by the Latest Discoveries (1908). Read the unveiling of these cycle-science mysteries and be awed tallbloke!
The preceding examples of scrupulously-computed, passionately-believed climatological cycle-science (along with dozens more!) are commended to every Climate Etc reader … as as advice against over-interpretation of fluctuating datasets.
Fan-boi, there are more relevant papers both more ancient and modern than your ridiculous suggestions. Try Brown, MRAS 1900 or Schwentek and Elling 1964. Here, I’ll make it easy for you:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/jackpot-jupiter-and-saturn-solar-cycle-link-confirmed/
There’s a nice 61 yr cycle for Judy and Marcia to pick up on in due course.
TB mentioned RJ Salvador’s contributions.
RJ Salvador has brought a breath of fresh air to the solar-climate discussion. Reaction to his introductory article at wuwt revealed the dark ignorance of even the supposed best, most authority-worthy audience members. The reaction was shameful. It was a wake-up call about just how severely corrupted the whole climate discussion is.
Marcia, a couple of thoughts:
1) it seems to me that if you have a number of oscillators of somewhat different periods, the net effect can be an overall oscillation of yet another related period. As the magnitudes of the component oscillations vary, the resultant wave period can vary slightly, as well.
2) While it’s true that the system overall has to have enough energy to sustain oscillation, that’s not necessarily true of all of the component oscillations. Some of them might be damped enough to where they would die off in isolation, but if other have a surplus of energy, they can keep the whole ensemble going as a system. What you have is more like a classroom full of rowdy kids; you know that something’s going on and sustaining itself, but you don’t know who started it, nor who are the biggest contributors to sustaining it. They don’t have to all be contributing equally.
very apt insight and equally apt analogy.
Marcia
It’s getting late here in the UK so I will bow out shortly with some 500 comments made, mostly seemingly relevant
I was curious as to whether you have found this blogging experience interesting and more pertinently whether it has been worthwhile in exploring various aspects of your joint paper
Tonyb
Marcia,
When looking for the rowdy kid who started it, this paper might provide some nice clues, with Gliessberg potentially being the family name, if you need to call the parents of that rowdy kid:
http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/personal/nag/nagyu/sph02b.pdf
Marcia Wyatt, Please allow me to second the appreciation that I read above. You have set the highest standard I can recall for maintaining your composure and replying with detail-rich informative posts. Like the others, I look forward to your future work.
willard objects. marica used the word ‘we’ he’ll finish counting adverbs soon
The MD wave isn’t some internal-to-Earth thing getting nudged by a solar amplitude wave of similar period. NEITHER Earth nor Sun have stationary waves at that period. Sound interpretation will depend on better awareness first of what’s happening at annual & semi-annual timescales. (The entire discussion is being held hostage by corrupting, conceptually-inadequate anomaly-think.) The shape & composition of the atmosphere changes with the solar cycle, QBO, & ENSO. Seeing through QBO & ENSO with bifocal cyclic volatility wavelet lenses that simultaneously align grain to semi-annual & extent to Schwabe it’s a trivial exercise to measure the rate of twist on the scale-resolved solar-terrestrial-climate weave. It’s simply changing length of Schwabe time-streaks during which column-integrated equator-pole insolation-gradients are deflected meridionally in the NH. The large scale flow just spends increasing or decreasing amounts of time in one configuration or another to cumulatively push the equilibrium. Since a major property of the atmosphere is differential velocity, there’s no 11 year surface signal. It’s necessary to look at column-integrated indices to see Schwabe. This is one of the long-standing egregious deceptions of authority-abusing solar-terrestrial obfuscation artists who prey on dumb audience members who naively expect something that can be strictly ruled out by the simplest possible diagnostics that could be done by a good (great not even necessary) Stat 101 student. The jets are shifted in cross-ENSO aggregate by the solar cycle, but also by the ocean background temperature (since temperature, mass, & velocity are coupled). HOWEVER — and this is the big however everyone (listen up stephen wilde) misses (whether deliberately or accidentally) — that background itself is an integral of the sustenance of earlier solar-modulated (spatiotemporally) large-scale-flow-governing column-gradients. Not easy for most here to understand perhaps. Do the calculations independently and it will then be easier to see and understand. Start by isolating the solar-terrestrial-climate weave from earth rotation & global atmospheric angular momentum records. It’s necessary to understand that before it will make any sense why the changing rate of twist cumulatively modulates terrestrial large scale flow geometry. You people need to wake up. This is a dead f**king simple geometric proof. You need to independently get a grip on each of the dots so you can see how they connect in the proof. If you rely on someone else, you’ll never get it — you’ll never even be able to get it — you would just have to take some authority figure’s word for it — and of what use is that??? If there’s any important lesson arising out of this whole solar-terrestrial-climate discussion, it’s that the western math education system needs a SEVERE overhaul…
Hi Paul.
My position does not exclude that.
At base my proposition can be very simply stated.
Whatever forcing elements seek to drive system energy content away from that set by mass, gravity and ToA insolation the global air circulation will react negatively to cancel it.
That covers all your points and those of pretty much everyone else too.
All we are left to consider (and it is very complex) is the interaction of the huge number of internal system variables that participate in the adjustment process.
And the issue of the scale of natural variability as against that caused by our emissions (negligible in my view).
“negligible, in my view”
Yep, and we’d be SO much better off if we could get on with negligating (neglecting) it, as in spending zero time and money trying to suppress it.
Stephen, its strictly not necessary to describe the fine-scale detail to recognize the externally-driven constraints on large-scale circulation. Even if someone wants to inaccurately call it pure turbulence (let’s call it “turbulence” to underscore reservations I don’t have time to explain), it’s “turbulence” contained in a box. The dimension of the box doesn’t stray on average from pulsing with the solar cycle. My role (you have your own) is to help the mainstream academics recognize the attractors. They were missed for a common reason in stat interpretation: failure to recognize statistical paradox. It’s very, very simple. It’s understandable that this frightens a lot of people, but (switching my address to others) you can’t hide from it so you might as well come out and get used to it. Soon enough you’ll recognize it’s beautiful. Maybe a good analogy would be a cute, loving dog that you initially fear might bite you.
Cheers
“This paper will change the way you think about natural internal variability.”
Congratulations Judith, an excellent piece of work. I see enquiring minds are already asking what the external variability might be which leads to the quasi-cyclic internal variability:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/10/11/mexican_wave_climate_variability/
Under discussion here:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/andrew-orlowski-boffins-find-mexican-wave-pattern-in-random-climate-wobbles/
We’re getting there. Latest is that I’ve found orbital resonances operating in the solar system which are echoed both by Earth’s climatic cycles and solar differential rotation frequencies. Also, that there is a strong spin-orbit coupling between neighbouring planets and their synodic periods involving big boy Jupiter. I’ve submitted a paper for review.
Nicola Scafetta’s latest paper showing ‘Fan of more discourse’ just how bad IPPC CMIP models are compared to simple models based on planetary harmonics is a humdinger too.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/10/09/nicola-scafetta-discussion-on-climate-oscillations-cmip5-general-circulation-models-versus-a-semi-empirical-harmonic-model-based-on-astronomical-cycles/
Yeah! “Harmonic Planetary Frequencies“ is the name of my new climate-science band!
It’s already taken, and you’re too dorky to play.
So gather up your naff smileys and love-hearts and take a hike fan boi.
Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
Judy Curry and Marcia Wyatt’s paper meshes with Talksjhop reseach on quasi cyclic solar system dynamics.
Are you from Iceland, by any chance? ;-)
I thought it more of a Dutch ring to it myself. I always fancied living on one of those nice sailing Tjalks in Amsterdam during party season.
I know a good Tjalk shop where you can buy one, if you fancy ;-)
Curse those fat fingers (or the tiny keyboard). :)
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21587197-it-seems-dangerously-easy-get-scientific-nonsense-published-sciences-sokal
yup. now you know why peer review is not the acid test. that would be why some of us ask for code and data. not to harass folks but merely because peer review doesnt necessarily do what it purports to.
Competent parties can reproduce both correct & incorrect results independently.
Paul Vaughan | October 11, 2013 at 7:35 pm |
Competent parties can reproduce both correct & incorrect results independently
#####################
on the contrary.
1. In this paper they point to SAT data that is not at the link they point to.
2. There is no assurance that the data they point to was in fact the data used.
3. Empirical studies show that the same reseacher cannot reproduce his own work when asked to.
A paper is an advertisement for the work done. Truth in advertising demands that you show your work. otherwise Im under NO RATIONAL OBLIGATION to believe you. simple as that.
what they’ve done is simple
there’s no mystery
Paul Vaughan | October 12, 2013 at 12:32 am |
what they’ve done is simple
there’s no mystery
#################
then point to the SAT data, moron.
unacceptable distortion
I couldn’t find SAT either. It is probably an oversight on our host’s or her cohort’s part.
I think I am replying in the right place here. This regards the SAT, or Arctic surface temperature. I see that indeed the link supplied in the data chart does not give the data set, just the ice. That is an oversight on my part. I apologize and am glad it was brought to my attention. I have sent Judy the data file. I got mine direct from the AARI by emailing them. It is also in the appendix of the Frolov et al text cited in the references. But I am not suggesting you go either of those routes. Please contact either Judy or me and I can send an attachment with this information. Again, my apologies.
tonyb asked:
“What is the nature of the climate phenomena you mention?”
Around 2000 the following climate phenomena all changed trend:
i) More meridional jets in both hemispheres.
ii) Stratosphere cooling stopped.
iii) Troposphere warming stopped.
iv) Global cloudiness began to increase.
v) El Ninos have faded away relative to La Ninas.
vi) The hurricane ACE index has fallen.
vii) AO and AAO becoming more negative with record AO negativity around the time of the minimum between cycles 23 and 24.
There are others but that is all I recall at the moment.
All correlated to the decline in solar activity since the peak of cycle 23.
Stephen Wilde: ii) Stratosphere cooling stopped.
iv) Global cloudiness began to increase.
Where can I read about those?
Google the Earthshine project (Palle et al) and NOAA’s reanalysisof strat temperature. NOAA data may not be available during shutdown of US govt services.
Stephen Wilde: All correlated to the decline in solar activity since the peak of cycle 23.
Do they correlate with solar activity over a long time, say their entire well-recorded histories?
Negative AO certainly matches solar minimum for the last 5 cycles. Article on my blog last year about this.
tallbloke, thank you for both
“Do they correlate with solar activity over a long time, say their entire well-recorded histories?”
The answer is no. Tallbloke and others will not admit this though.
What ‘entire well recorded histories’ ?
There are some sources as tallbloke points out but the rest is woefully lacking.
We must start from now and see what happens next.
Princeton University report released Thursday found that a local 2-year-old eastern chipmunk had crafted a far more secure and responsible future for itself than 8 out of 10 Americans. The Onion
I hope to see the calculations
Theorems of Hille-Yosida and Lumer-Phillips.
Hahn-Banach theorem
Marcia, Judith,
Your work apparently predicts a recovery of the Arctic sea ice. It would be really great if you could crunch some numbers and come up with a prediction for when. Then if you are correct you will get lots of kudos. Though if you say “in the year 2060” then I suppose kudos may not be so valuable to you then.
Thanks,
Rich.
I would like to thank our hostess, Marcia, and all those, too numerous to mention, who made this the most informative thread on CE for a long time. It was a real pleasure to follow the SCIENTIFIC discussion.
It turns out ,amazingly, that , after all the great battles, climate prediction for several hundred years ahead is fairly simple and straight forward. You don’t need to understand the mechanisms (although it would be nice and entertaining) to make perfectly reasonable and testable (over 5 years or so ) forecasts. Practically everyone accepts that the 60 year PDO cycle recently changed from warming to cooling phase – hence Judith’s 30 year cooling. All that is required is to take, as a working hypothesis the fairly small and reasonable step of accepting that the recent peak was also a peak in the 1000 year cycle This periodicity seen in seen in the temperature proxy and ice core data data in Figs 3 and 4 in the last post at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
This post also contains a forecast of the timing and extent of the coming cooling.
The cooling forecast is strengthened by the current decline in solar activity
clearly seen in the Oulu neutron count data – Fig 9 in the link provided.
The connection between solar activity is best seen in the GCR count see
Fig 8 in the link. Again you don’t have to understand the physical mechanisms involved. I say in the linked post:
“Furthermore Fig 8 shows that the cosmic ray intensity time series derived from the 10Be data is the most useful proxy relating solar activity to temperature and climate. – see Fig 3 CD from Steinhilber
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/30/1118965109.full.pdf
NOTE !! the connection between solar “activity” and climate is poorly understood and highly controversial. Solar ” activity” encompasses changes in solar magnetic field strength, IMF, CRF, TSI ,EUV, solar wind density and velocity, CMEs, proton events etc. The idea of using the neutron count as a useful proxy for changing solar activity and temperature forecasting is agnostic as to the physical mechanisms involved.
Hi Norman,
The physical basis of the 974 year periodicity is that it is an angular momentum cycle in the solar system.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2009/12/30/meet-the-new-kepler-p-a-semi/
Tim Channon, my co-blogger found that combining it with the 208 year de Vries cycle gave an excellent model for the Steinhilber et al 10Be proxy back in early 2011.
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/sbf-tsi-c.png
Towards the end of the previous post it should read “the connection between solar activity and climate is best seen……..”
This is one of the best posts ever because it’s about the science. Not all the noise and obfuscation around the science. It’s actually enlightening. I love it.
Remember – first, come to a very good understanding of what’s to be modeled, the parts as it were, and only then – make a model.
If you don’t understand the wings, your model of a plane will crash.
Agree about it being one of the best posts and why.
tallbloke I agree with the point you make. But having said climate forecasting is not much more than common sense I didn’t want to shock the tender sensibilities of the blogger community too much. Obviously nature is a bit fuzzy and the resonances of the various quasi cycles are going to wander about a bit in time and appear and disappear from time to time as in morphlet wave analysis.
Norman, there are many cyclic phenomena near 60 years which could be involved, and most likely are at different times, as they wander out and back into phase with each other and the main oscillation. The Ocean oscillation period is both in a 2:3 with the Gleissberg cycle and in a 3:2 with the inner solar system return period around 44.7 years. When it also get’s reinforced by the ~74yr Lunar cycle evident in north atlantic data, we get a bigger AMO. Here’s a summary of Harald Yndestad’s work:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/the-moon-is-linked-to-long-term-atlantic-changes/
Of interest is the authors have speculated on a possible solar driver for the Stadium Wave.
Is there a 60 year periodicity in the solar signal? I do not think so as it varies greatly depending on grand minima. Abreu et al found a 208 year signal in the isotope record between grand minima and there is a natural solar low point that is not grand minima related that happens between grand minima, that might get close to a 60 year signal in the solar record. But there is a problem, the 208 year gap between grand minima is not constant, it is just the most common.
If we look over the LIA (1250-1850) the gap between grand minima is a lot less than 208 years, this is because of the high strength and longevity of the grand minima that occurred during this period. Solar Grand Minima control the overall solar output as seen in the isotope record over the Holocene and present day which in conjunction with ocean oscillations control our climate.
So can we identify the Solar Powerwave to see if it aligns with the Stadium Wave, can we predict the future of the Solar Powerwave which might be useful if there is a link to the Stadium Wave? Yes I think we can, but an understanding of the concepts is required.
To gain an understanding there are two components of the powerwave. I have written an article on my blog which explains the components, but I will also try to summarize here.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/218
The first component is a background cycle modulation that I think is driven by Solar Angular Momentum (AM) and has existed for 4 billion years. Some know of it as the Gleissberg cycle but the peaks can only occur when AM is at its greatest. This can only occur when Uranus and Neptune are together every 172 years. This is the background of the powerwave shown below (pink line).
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/powerwave3.png
Now for the hard part. Grand minima disrupt this wave and also can only occur at the top of the wave or again when Uranus and Neptune are together. To compound the issue all grand minima epochs are different because the disordered solar path that causes grand minima is also different every time (This is also backed up by Wollf & Patrone). The disordered solar orbits that can only occur near the top of the wave usually come in three’s with each disordered orbit having a different outcome. When there are 3 strong disordered orbits we have a Sporer Minimum type situation, when the first orbit is weak, the second medium and the third missing we have todays situation (SC20, SC24 etc) The prongs on the following chart show the variability and timing of the disordered orbits.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/trident.png
So once an understanding is established it becomes clear that there can never be a repeating solar pattern, but a rough quasi cycle can be established as the top of the wave is always 172 years apart (171.44).
If the ocean oscillations are externally driven by the Jupiter/Saturn synods then we would expect these oscillations to at times be out of step with the solar wave. But if the ocean oscillations are linked to the solar wave then maybe we should not expect a 60 year pattern to remain constant.
60 years is very close to 3X the Saturn Jupiter lap beat of 19.859 = 59.577
Tallblokes 974 periodicity is in the ball park with 3X the USJ lap beat at 317.74 = 953.22
Chuck in a bit for other planetary influences and various lags between these drivers and earth’s climate and these correlations seem likely to be meaningful.(Leif Svalgaard would probably have an apoplexy}
Norman, If the paper I’ve submitted is accepted, Leif will probably have multiple apoplexies. Even though all I’m doing is reporting observations which prove spin-orbit coupling beyond any reasonable doubt, and showing that the organisation and timings of the solar system are the natural outcome of lognormal particle distribution and the power law of gravity. It’s beautifully simple, as well as simply beautiful.
Mary Selvam writes that climate is governed by the inverse power law as are the relative sizes and locations of planets.
Got a link for that?
Thanks
Tallbloke
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1002/1002.3230.pdf
Looking forward to your paper on orbit couplings with our climate.
I am convinced that climate science should focus more on getting regional meteorological predictions of weather extended to cover up to 12 weeks, which will be of far greater use and benefit for communities around the globe.
Thanks Peter, I’ll take a read.
Dr Norman Page and tallbloke, thank you for teaching Climate Etc readers about planetary-influence cycle-science; our kitty-cat is a huge fan of your novel climate-cycle theories!
Tallbloke for a very useful and thought provoking empirical review of the sun/climate teleconnections see
t Happs work
http://www.happs.com.au/images/stories/PDFarticles/TheCommonSenseOfClimateChange.pdf
I would appreciate Tim’s thoughts on it.
That link fails to connect for me. I had to got through a proxy to get the Happs paper. Not sure who’s blocking me or why the server pretends it’s not there.
Greg Works OK for me – Your Firewall ?
The non-equilibrium thermodynamics chemical world has parallels. While I’ve not seen a stadium-wave set up for the Briggs-Raucher variation of the Belousov_Zhabotinsky reaction, there are beautiful video demonstrations of the linear and two-dimensional manifestation such as:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyVQv9QfnAQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBa4kgXI4Cg
Biology also gets in on the act with ring-species such as the Larus Gull or the Song Sparrow. I wouldn’t be surprised if phytoplankton/cyanobacter also exhibited such traits.
The entropy isn’t a conservative function like U.
delta F = delta H – T delta S
Interesting hypothesis Dr. Curry in you attempt to explain why the seventeen year “pause”, why the GCMs are all wrong.
But it may be even simpler, and that is when GCMs back-test into the past and adjust to fit if they seem to not be using the raw temperature records but instead are using the artificially (~+0.7°C) adjusted temperature data for their testing, or used to influence the parameters, if so no wonder they are, all of them, too high, even the lowest. No one seems to even question that line of thought. Possibly if they would just let the variances cancel themselves out, not perfect but better than the adjusted which themselves may be actually incorrect, they might find that, hey, they can reproduce with much better accuracy and the ensemble centered about reality. This climate science seem to be caught in an endless cycle of incorrect assumptions.
So, does this paper essentially cut global warming estimates in 1/2. . . or are we looking at a “return with a vengeance” after 2030?
It is necessary to understand basics of the system before talking about 2030, let alone 2100.
The basic AGW scare was based data known in 1999 added to the spurious assumption that the upward curve since 1960 was the underlying baseline behaviour. This was then attributed to CO2 and projected out based on likely continued emissions.
Recognition of the presence of an essentially cycle component removes some of amplitude from the underlying quadratic or exponential like rise. Due to the increasingly fast rate of change in both those kinds of curve, reducing the initial fitted values has a disproportionate effect on where it ends up in say 2100.
So in that sense it’s not just a case of gaining a bit now only to see the opposite added in later.
Extrapolating outside the period of available data is always risky. When your fitted model is exponential growth the uncertainty rapidly becomes so large that the result is useless.
However, the magnitude of the 60y variation is still not enough to explain the pause.
That has led the IPCC, after 30 years of saying solar variation was irrelevant, to reluctantly invoke it as a possible factor in the pause. They seem rather mute on the implication that this also means it was a factor in the warming.
The same logic then applies to how this affects the parameters of the exponential rise. Small adjustments to the calibration period can have huge effects on exponential projections. Until a model can reflect the pause in a reasonably convincing way, it is pointless to extrapolate it 90 years beyond the end of the data it fails to match.
You raise a very good point, in that a 0.1 degree change that will reverse later may seem unimportant. I hope my explanation shows it does matter more than may be immediately obvious.
Well, apart from the occasional (inevitable) deviation into semantic purgatory, this was one of the most interesting posts and threads of comments here in a while. Kudos to Dr. Curry and Marcia Wyatt, and particularly to Marcia for engaging in open discussion of her paper and staying on topic, rather than being derailed by content free distractions.
Dr Marcia Wyatt & Dr Judith Curry:
Congratulations from France. Impressive job, this paper is really educational.
Your study, describing how the natural climate works at the multidecadal scale and linking together so many oscillations is more important for the all humankind that the entire IPPC report.
IPCC bureaucrats following a political agenda don’t understand (or don’t want to understand) how the natural climate works, so they can’t make any prophecy for the future. They just want to spread fear and imposing politics that will lead to kill the economic growth in emergent and developing countries. It’s eco-imperialism, colonialism of the atmosphere.
So, it’s the sun, somehow. I don’t worry, Marcia Wyatt’s on the case.
Oh, yes, Judy too.
I suspect Leif is on it too.
=====================
Yes Kim, I’m sure Leif will be coming up with ideas about how best to distract, derail and obfuscate the discussion of this paper as we speak.
Listenin’ ta distant drummin’ wings, as time flutters by.
============
er, ‘strummin’, geeping wently.
==========
jest a Lief blowin’ in the wind
Agreed, I’ve noticed the floor of the climate science house needs sweeping too. With a new broom.
Somewhere far away and forgotten, he likened the tidal effects to the movement of a butterfly wing, and I’ve been beating my winged drums ever since.
===============
Leif’s mixed metaphors signal his conflation of the syncopated drum beat with chaos.
Nonlinear oscillatory phenomena are no doubt much under-appreciated players in many natural phenomena. Tsonis and Swanson were on the right track and you are taking their work forward brilliantly.
You might look – as I’m sure you have – to the extensive literature on nonlinear oscillators for further insights as to mechanism. For instance, I had a quick look and found these three:
Steinhauser et al 2012:
http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~ksteinha/papers/CLIMDYN11.pdf
Donges et al 2009:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.4359.pdf
Slotine et al 2004:
http://web.mit.edu/nsl/www/preprints/belgium04.pdf
The latter is interesting in introducing the concept of “power leader” and “knowledge leader” among synchronized nonlinear oscillators. Here is the abstract:
Contraction analysis of synchronization in networks of nonlinearly coupled oscillators.
Slotine, Jean-Jacques E., Wei Wang, and Khalid El-Rifai
Proc. 16th Int. Symp. Mathematical Theory of Networks and Systems. 2004.
Nonlinear contraction theory allows surprisingly simple analysis of synchronisation phenomena in distributed networks of coupled nonlinear elements. The key idea is the construction of a virtual contracting system whose particular solutions include the individual subsystems’ states. We also study the role, in both nature and system design, of co-existing “power” leaders, to which the networks synchronize, and “knowledge” leaders, to whose parameters the networks adapt. Also described are applications to large scale computation using neural oscillators, and to time-delayed tele-operation between synchronized groups. Similarly, contraction theory can be systematically and simply extended to address classical questions in hybrid nonlinear systems. The key idea is to view the formal definition of a virtual displacement, a concept central to the theory, as describing the state transition of a differential system. This yields in turn a compositional contraction analysis of switching and resetting phenomena. Applications to hybrid nonlinear oscillators are also discussed.
Following from this, quoting from the above article on your work with Curry:
Building upon Wyatt’s Ph.D. thesis at the University of Colorado, Wyatt and Curry identified two key ingredients to the propagation and maintenance of this stadium wave signal: the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and sea ice extent in the Eurasian Arctic shelf seas. The AMO sets the signal’s tempo, while the sea ice bridges communication between ocean and atmosphere.
Using Slotine’s terminology, could the AMO be the “power leader” or possibly the “knowledge leader”?
Phlogiston, Coincidentally, these same three papers were just sent to me several days ago. I have read the Slotine et al one and think the power leader concept is well worth exploring (AMO??)… Glad you posted these links. Interesting material.
Marcia Wyatt: “The results showed no patterns of co-variability among the collected indices at time scales less than this multi-decadal time scale. I can see about posting some of my raw-data plots. Give me a little time on that though”
I’m a little surprised there’s no sign of 9y found by Scafetta and Judith’s other collaboration with BEST on land SAT.
I found it to be a prominent cycle in many ocean basins:
http://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/icoads_pds_9_grp.png
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/61/
Maybe it was not common to the other physical data so did not come out in the ensemble.
Just a side note that 13/1.3371 =9.7 so 9 is close to the negative lobe artefact of 13y RM filter.
Greg, it surprised me too when the first 8-member stadium wave was analyzed (with Kravtsov and Tsonis). Clearly the higher frequencies dominate in some indices, but the results have been pretty consistent with the multidecadal variability being shared by all network indices.
Dr. Curry & Dr. Wyatt,
Thank you for a most interesting paper, and for a blog post that has been one of the most on-topic and informative in quite some time. As an electrical engineer, I have always thought about climate as the interaction of several very low frequency oscillators (or oscillating-like phenomena) coupled in a variety of loose to tight ways. At times reinforcing, and at other times cancelling. Very well done. Congratulations.
Well, so am I.
Adding 2 and 2 is not what the naive person thinks it is when it comes to dealing with wave interference. I can see that you can appreciate a much simpler view of what is going on.
Consider that nature is providing the thermal agitation that adds and subtracts in random patterns. These patterns provide the peaks and valleys that we see, yet we can still detect the underlying accelerating warming trend.
Look at this chart that shows the random contribution of SOI, volacanoes, TSI, and LOD (representing multi-decadal features).
http://imageshack.us/a/img543/6837/vlq.gif
This is very similar to the way that aquatic waves develop at sea, with the occasional large wave composed of just the right phasing of smaller waves.
More here:
http://contextearth.com/2013/10/04/climate-variability-and-inferring-global-warming/
You continue to ignore what is shown by your own graph. Even after all your ‘noise reduction’ and adjusting for everything you can think of, the slope since 2000 is about half that of your assumed quadratic (?) model.
A significant factor is still missing.
WHT,
“Adding 2 and 2 is not what the naive person thinks it is when it comes to dealing with wave interference. I can see that you can appreciate a much simpler view of what is going on. ”
You have no idea what I appreciate (apart from complementing on this particular paper) . Having come here over the years to learn something, it is a pain to wade through a lot of repetitive nonsense. You and a few others should be moderated to your first 10 MB or 1000 posts, whichever comes first. Let me just say you are very tiresome and overly argumentative.
Goodman is probably upset that this approach doesn’t require any fancy signal processing techniques, just the scaling and subtraction of known natural variability measures.
The main result is that there is no pause in the underlying externally-forced upward warming trend.
Marcia, thanks for the explanations. I’ll have to go over your paper again.
“[wbc] this may be one avenue through which CO2 does have potential to affect the variability pattern of the wave. ”
Please note the lags in the legend of the CO2 lines:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=259
This is not about CO2 causing anything, it is about what is changing CO2 (or rather one part of that change) The _rate of change_ of CO2 correlates to AO with a lag on CO2. The physical laws noted in the text are classic physics causation for this. The lags should be of interest to the kind of propagation you are studying.
The lags are close to peaks in Pacific trade wind data
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=281
I have not gone into that but again it may relate to your work.
There are technical reasons for making the data stationary and mean-zero. I would avoid attributing that to anything at the outset in order to remain objective. If you remove a quadratic, which would seem a fair representation, I would avoid constraining it to start at zero slope. The data does not indicate that and there would be danger of induction. As I said diffing is another objective way worth exploring.
I have to skip out now, I’ll look later for some other correlations I have .
There are interesting differences between 1975-1998 and periods before and after in terms of what correlates best.
Greg You say earlier
“It is necessary to understand basics of the system before talking about 2030, let alone 2100. ”
This is simply untrue. It is perfectly possible to make useful forecasts by identifying quasi -periodic – quasi repetitive patterns in the system and projecting them forwards. See the cooling forecasts at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
Similarly you don’t have to understand the physical processes in the sun-climate connection to use the 10Be record and neutron count to see what the current trends are.
Academic scientists go to great lengths to avoid the obvious. It seems to me that Judith’s paper basically reinvents the wheel and finds the 60 year PDO cycle (See Fig4 at the link)
Everyone knows that temps rose from about 1910 – 1940+/- fell from there to 1970 or so ,rose from there to about 2003 and will likely fall for 30 years from that point. Combine that with the 1000 year cycle seen in Figs 3, and 4 in the last post on the link and low and behold a perfectly transparent ,and reasonable forecast. I’m a great believer in Ockham’s razor. It’s not that difficult if you step back so you can see the wood from the trees.
” It seems to me that Judith’s paper basically reinvents the wheel and finds the 60 year PDO cycle (See Fig4 at the link)”
Serious?
Greg You say earlier
[i]“It is necessary to understand basics of the system before talking about 2030, let alone 2100. ” [/i]
This is simply untrue. It is perfectly possible to make useful forecasts by identifying quasi -periodic – quasi repetitive patterns in the system and projecting them forwards.
Well it depends how quasi, you think your double quasi’s are. However, you quote me out of context, I’m specifically talking about the sensitivity of quadratic and exponential functions to small changes in their calibration. When models are calibrated over 50 years at best extrapolating twice that is beyond justification.
Notable similarities between power spectra of trade winds and arcitc ice extent:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=446
Why imposing zero dT/dt on quadratic ‘trend’ is not always a valid constraint:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=523
SST correlation strongest from 1972 – 2000
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=233
AO correlates best from 1994 , about then end of statistically significant warming:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=259
The temperature plateau allows us to see the importance of SLP on d(CO2)/dt . The correlation with the detail seems compelling.
This needs to be compared ot SOI and AAO as well to see if there is coincident correlation but it seems the Arctic ocean is acting as the dominant cold water sink for CO2. Nothwithstanding this is a variation relative to a mean of 2ppmv/K presumably the residual of non-sequestrated emissions.
Well there’s a few teleconnections to play with I hope that gives some useful phase relations to chew on.
From the paper:
“global redistribution of water account for ~14% of the magnitude of ngLOD
variability (Gross 2005); the remainder attributed to interactions within the Earth’s interior”
And what might be the underlying driver of those ‘interactions within the Earth’s interior?
This correlation with the spatio-temporal distribution of solar system mass wrt the solar equatorial plane might help:
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/ssb-z-lod-temp.jpg
Interesting, yet another correlation that has problems with Hadley’s post war adjustments.
“2ppmv/K presumably the residual of non-sequestrated emissions.”
Hmm, may be jumping to conclusions.
Post 2000 seems to show a clear SST causes d/dt(CO2) component. longer period shows the ratio is 8ppm/year/kelvin :
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=233
inter-annual ration: 8ppm/year/kelvin for inter-annual variation
long term ratio: 4 ppm/year/kelvin , as the inter-decadal ratio.
Someone here in the last couple of days also pointed out that the _proportion_ of emissions remaining air borne has been in steady decline. I noted that this may be expected as the ocean is being taken further away from dynamic equilibrium as atm CO2 accumulates.
The temp CO2 relationship is far from being a simple one way causation.
Someone ought be looking at this a little closer.
This paper could gain some scientific traction if a dynamical physical foundation were presented instead of relying upon the misleadingly familiar concept of the “stadium wave.” Various indices may be useful for phenomenological descriptions, but they are not physical mechanisms per se. Far from changing one’s conception of natural mutidecadal variability, this paper succeeds only in re-inforcing the reputation of “climate science” as a speculative handwaving ” exercise, replete with ill-conceived notions of “feedbacks.
“if a dynamical physical foundation were presented”
You can’t hurry the maturation of a good wine. Nor should you hurry the drinking of it. Nor should you tell the vintners the wine can’t be any good if they don’t know all the secrets of soil mechanics.
Good wine can be made only from good grapes, not just any mash, such as some of the indices employed here. And the wine-making process cannot be done in reverse. That is precisely the problem when C&W indulge in unphysical speculation that the muti-decadal temperature oscillations evident in many regions of the globe are “generated and sustained” by sea-ice variations in the Eurasian Arctic. Temperatures there are strongly dependent upon poleward transport of heat. While in phase with AMO, they lag the PDO and Nino3.4 variations greatly.
John says: ” this paper succeeds only in re-inforcing the reputation of “climate science” as a speculative handwaving ” exercise,
===
That would be speculative handwaving with numbers, right?
Handy number waving.
================
Right! It’s merely a rite of index idolatry.
Observation and the categorizing and organizing of observations is the critical first step in elucidating the behavior of climate. Climate scientists have already erred by creating climate models based on flawed premises. Let’s step back, take a deep breath, and learn from our mistakes.
Marcia and Judy,
On a second read of your paper I think it’s possible you’ve got your LOD curve upside down in Fig1. It’s actually the precursor to all the other changes, not the Johnny-come-lately in the stadium wave.
If you think about what actually happens when the Earth speeds up or slows down, you can see that the oceans, not being fixed to anything, just keep going at the speed they were, and consequently pile-up (in the case of the Atlantic) against the shores of Africa or America. This of course produces large amounts of cold upwelling as the oceans level out again.
On my rough calcs, this upwelling of cold deep water spreading out under the tradewinds will be enough to affect surface temps at the times of climate regime reversals, and sure enough there is a giveaway dip near the peak of the AMO, and the troughs are spikier than the crests of the AMO curve.
Perhaps a way to test the hypothesis would be to look at coastal SST and Nmat temperature anomalies over the decade straddling the LOD reversals on either side of the Atlantic.
Changes in LOD are controlled primarily by Jupiter, and the proof is incredibly simple, as my paper will show if it gets accepted. The ~86% of low frequency LOD change being attributed to interactions within the Earth’s interior is incorrect. Those interactions are the effect, not the cause of low frequency changes in LOD.
TB says: “It’s actually the precursor to all the other changes, not the Johnny-come-lately in the stadium wave.”
I’m not averse to the idea that inertial changes can affect climate , perhaps all this will become clearer when we finally see the contents of you paper.
My initial attempts looking for correlation between Nino events and dLOD showed SST increased before LOD changed. If you have evidence contrary effects it would be interesting. to see.
Nino1.2 regions SST vs dLOD :
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=549
“showed SST increased before LOD changed. ”
That would fit with the sun building up that temperature imbalance either side of the equator then the LOD change (perhaps in conjunction with other factors) triggering the next ENSO event.
My interpretation would be higher SST and eventual increase in thunderstorms moves mass from ocean to atmosphere. Angular momentum change slows earth, increasing LOD.
That is fairly classic stuff but the graph seems to show SST affecting LOD rather than LOD trigger El Nino events. I did this a couple of years ago, it may be worth checking. Maybe there’s another reading of this or I made a mistake.
Nino1 on ARGO:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=541
Steve, you seem to be suggesting ENSO trigger is a N/S swing rather than E/W . Any concrete evidence of that?
It does make sense that variations in length of day would cause disturbances in fluid media such as the atmosphere, the oceans and Earth’s interior.
The idea that such a disturbance in the oceans might affect the timing of ENSO events such as El Nino and La Nina seems reasonable.
Once the solar energy input imbalance either side of the equator grows to the necessary size then the timing of the subsequent ENSO event could be influenced by a variety of factors acting in combination.
Looking at this plot again, it d/dt(LOD) _inverted_ that is plotted.
Not sure what this makes of the main spike but there is about 9 years of build-up in LOD (negated) before 1998. ie dLOD is getting more negative, days are getting shorter, Earth is speeding up.
As a slowing of Earth would lead to mass of Pacific Ocean running up against South Am. and up-welling of cooler deeper waters, so a faster Earth will do the opposite and warmer surface waters will flow to fill the gap.
That still leaves the question of what is causing the change in angular momentum reflected in the LOD data.
The 9y rise and subsequent 9 year fall suggests luni-solar saros or similar. Long term ocean tides pulling water towards and away from the equator could cause a change in ang. mom, as could changes in atmospheric mass discussed by Happs.
I’ve just has a quick check of the EOP daily data for LOD, the rise is very close to 9y the drop is 8y. Caution on the cyclomania angle.
“…the oceans and Earth’s interior.”
The Earth’s interior is like the deep ocean, a nice place to hide things that don’t fit. ;)
Greg, although the initial thermal imbalance is a N/S thing the Earth’s rotation makes it slide along the equator E/W until it dissipates into the northern oceans.
Gents, thanks for your interest in my comment. A couple of observations:
A slowing of Earth causes water to pile up against Africa, not America. Viewed from above the north pole, Earth spins (and orbits) anti-clockwise. So stop the Earth and the Atlantic ocean rushes over Africa (extreme thought experiment).
Gross already calculated that redistribution of water can only account for 14% of low fequency changes in LOD. El nino and rainfall pattern do affect LOD but on a scale an order of magnitude smaller than what we’re discussing here. Gross attributes the other 86% of low frequency LOD change to some unknown gurgling in the guts of Gaia. I don’t buy it. We are talking here about a changing density distribution which would have to be lifting very heavy elements through a liquid medium and supporting them. How does that happen and if it is, why would it be happening on a 60 year cycle?
No. My correlation above potentially shows the real explanation has something to do with the changing disposition of the solar system masses, predominantly the gas giants. But that would require some sort of spin orbit coupling stronger than the tidal forces between planets can account for, right?
My submitted paper demonstrates that there is. And it isn’t evident just on Earth. Venus has slowed down 6 minutes in the last 15 years. Saturn’s radio emission cycle varied between 637 and 648 minutes over two decades. The latitudinal belts on the Sun speed up and slow down decadally. These are all hitherto unexplained observations that science journalists like to write articles about, including words like ‘baffled’, ‘stumped’ and ‘mystery’.
Good fun isn’t it?
ngLOD = -LOD (negative LOD)
Paul, I know that. Plotting the data upside down doesn’t assist in presenting the stadium wave concept with a natural line of causality inherent in the temporal axis though.
The idea put forward in this paper is one of a loop of causality , there is no first / last / johnny : it’s a loop.
Bear in mind that their resistant peers will only move in baby steps as they are hard-conditioned to believe that progress in understanding natural variations can only occur incrementally. Getting the peers to acknowledge the multivariate coherence will be a monumental feat as it takes away their modeling freedom by wiping out the patently false assumption of randomness.
Nobody likes having their freedoms stripped away, so I think the approach is one step at a time. Marcia’s approach: First establish multivariate coherence.
(Why is suggesting coupling of temperature, mass, & velocity so controversial?? Must be some pretty creeped-out careful-diagnostic-failing assumptions built into those crusty, stagnant models!)
The resistance I’m encountering on the STCW (solar-terrestrial-climate weave) is similar. It strips away orders of magnitude of modeling freedom. This causes severe modeler anxiety as it makes the math a horrendous, seemingly-intractable mess. Decades of work down the drain. Very hard to cope with. Easier to just pretend it doesn’t matter. Only problem is it’s observation-based and hard-constrained by laws of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum. Can’t look sensible resisting. If they’ve taken the time to deeply understand at a fundamental level, they’ll know they’re eventually going to get toppled if they resist something that black-&-white. Even in a politically-corrupt context, they can only misrepresent it as grey for so long. It’s not grey. It’s black-&-white. And it’s inconvenient. I suggest they put aside the focus on the inconvenience and come to grips with beautiful, simple 1+1=2.
Then what Marcia is showing them won’t be a mystery.
Cheers!
“The resistance I’m encountering on the STCW (solar-terrestrial-climate weave) is similar. ”
I don’t know where you present this and to whom to get resistance but I’ve seen your pic a couple of times without any explanation. You seem to assume that others are familiar with the tools you use and graphic representations. I’m not resistant, I just have no idea what the pretty pattern represents and frankly I’m not inclined to spend all day trying to guess or decrypt it.
If you have something you think is of fundamental importance, state what it is clearly.
If you explained how you get there, what it shows and why it matters, you may find less resistance.
You tend to be terse and cryptic which probably does not help.
regards, Greg.
“The idea put forward in this paper is one of a loop of causality , there is no first / last / johnny : it’s a loop”
Except that we know from the paper itself that the surface phenomena aren’t causing more than 14% of the multidecadal change in LOD. From which we can derive two obs:
1) If it part of the chain of causality, LOD is doing more of the causing than it is being affected by the other indices in the list.
2) The driver of LOD is missing from the stadium bus.
I have found the missing bus driver and will be putting him on parade soon.
So what did the Dragon King say to the Gas Giant? C’mon over here, I dare ya’; I’ll sweat carbon dioxide at ya’.
================
ok greg now you’re just making me angry and I can see clearly why TB banned you
For 3 years I’ve been going out of my way to emphasize that there are dozens of ways to isolate the attractor.
The simplest can be done in 5 minutes in a few columns in a spreadsheet by applying simple intuition. I’ve emphasized that countless times.
Center & spread are simple concepts. If a teacher stressing conceptual understanding asks students to independently devise a measure of spread before they’re introduced to standard deviation, they’ll quite naturally come up with the measure we call mean absolute deviation.
You’re not helping by promoting an attitude of helplessness. Like oh it’s so complicated I need an expert to do it using one of the more advanced methods and then tell me what to think.
It’s self-defeating to think so negatively and it’s not responsible to rely so heavily on others when its strictly not necessary. Just devise a simpler method. Rifle off a few columns of dead-simple calculations and you’re done. 5 minutes. A few spreadsheet columns. Literally.
It’s quite informative that people don’t even try. Instead they self-defeat by falsely assuming self-helplessness. Participating in the climate discussion is like swimming in The Sea of False Assumptions.
All along I’ve said I will answer specific questions from people actually trying. NO ONE ever has. Not one skeptic in 3 years has attempted a simple calculation that can be done in 5 minutes in a few spreadsheet columns. That’s a damning fact for alarmists to include in a book about skeptics. (FOMD take note.)
The fact that no one ever asks a specific question informs that they’re not even trying. A specific question would be like “Hey Paul, I’ve gotten this far, I’ve managed to do this and then when I got to that step I couldn’t figure out a way to do that. Should I be multiplying those numbers in that column or dividing them?” Then there could be a productive, civil exchange without all the fireworks needed to vigilantly defend against the social injustice of skeptic authority not being willing to admit black-&-white 1+1=2 to the discussion.
Years from now if someone ever comes up to me and says, “Hey, you used to be involved in all that solar-climate discussion stuff, right? What do you remember most about those days?”
I would answer:
“The ignorance and the deception.”
Has it been worth the time-sacrifices? Don’t know yet. Depends on whether the mainstream starts being reasonable — and soon.
Paul, I have seen you make this same argument and I have no idea what you are talking about. exactly what the heck are we supposed to do with a few columns on a spread sheet?
http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/02/spinning-the-climate-model-observation-comparison-part-ii/#comment-393011
If you have very specific questions, you’re welcome to ask.
See the middle section of STC101. That’s the black-&-white section. How to interpret the calculations and relate them to figure 1 of STC101 (SCD & NH SST — & thus stadium wave) is another matter (the step 2 I mentioned in my note to A Lacis). We can’t go there until prerequisites are in place.
If it’s not clear what columns to use in the files — or if something else isn’t clear — please just ask, being very specific.
If distortion artists try to interfere with or color our exchange negatively, I’m going to tell them to f**k off as my patience for that sort of thing has expired from prolonged exposure. I hope you will support me in resisting interference at least this once so we can do some serious, efficient communicating without the noise.
I’m at the start of a busy work week (going out the door in a few minutes) and I do not do blogging at work, so the timing is bad, but my availability is higher Fridays & Saturdays if stronger help is needed.
Paul, after clicking on your link, I still have little idea what you are talking about other than something about sun-climate connections. I see plots without axis labels, and very little discussion about what this is even about. It is vaguely intriguing, but there is a real communication problem. What is needed is an abstract that states a hypothesis, the type of data used to support the hypothesis, and a summary of your methods. Simply and clearly stating these would be very helpful.
Further, I don’t see any link to a data file with columns.
There has been a misunderstanding.
Links to LOD & AAM records are at the first link I gave where I outlined the exercise I’ve requested, which can easily be carried out in 5 minutes in a few spreadsheet columns by anyone (including anyone who has never seen illustrations and seminal 1997 & 2010 formal articles referenced in STC101’s middle section).
Paul Vaughan, Are you talking about how changes in the rate of heat uptake change the system response?
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2013/10/charging-gear-shift-solarenso-charging.html
I call it shifting charging gears or charging speed bumps. Since the NH heat transport rates are different than the SH transport rate, you have response curves that vary with the rate of “global” heat uptake.
Please focus very specifically on completing the quantitative exercise outlined here:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/02/spinning-the-climate-model-observation-comparison-part-ii/#comment-393011
Paul Vaughan, “Please focus very specifically on completing the quantitative exercise outlined here:”
No. You are posting basically incoherent crap and asking for others to re-analyze it. LOD varies with external “tidal” forcing and internal “tidal” response. That makes LOD a response signal not an input. You need mechanisms to explain the variations not more indicators of variation. We have those out the butt and if you add another significant digit or two you can get plenty more.
That means you need to determine the degree of precision the data will allow. You are integrating “averages” when you compare to temperature and solar TSI. The sun spot data is a blend of different averages of different precision slapped together with assumptions of consistency. The “average” SST depends on the baseline selection and how the seasonal cycle is removed.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-sw2ciSdza5Y/Ulmdsv-8sJI/AAAAAAAAJ5I/iqWf-CX8f3w/w985-h555-no/global+warming.png
The southern oceans naturally smooth “climate” while the northern oceans generate “weather”. Weather is amplified by nearly a factor of two in the NH helping to obscure “climate” signals.
Depending on the internal system mixing efficiency, it can charge, i.e. warm the deeper oceans more or less quickly, changing the response timing. A. M. Selvam has quite a body of work on the various natural internal frequencies that can be synchronized with natural external forcing frequencies. Fortunately for cyclomaniacs, the natural internal and external frequencies are close but not the same. This leads to Self-Organizing Criticality, where the synchronization temporarily maximizes but never fully locks in phase.
Now if you have some evidence of mechanisms that can predict phase”pseudo-locking” I am all ears, but the Stadium Wave has that pretty much covered in the Multi-decadal “Weather” context.
Paul,
You speak of WC’s demonstration of “multi-variate coherence” without examining its strength or spatial extent. Both are quite limited in the multi-decadal range and the cross-spectral coherence of Siberian Arctic temperatures with those in other regions is marginal to modest at best. That is the abiding mystery of teleconnections!
Judy: Are you going to do the calculations or not?
Not only does someone have to do the calculations for me, but they must also get me to understand what they have done.
Not everybody all at once, please.
=======================
It’s very telling that no one’s trying. And it’s also very telling that meanwhile floods of climate discussion comments are being made about *politics. I bet that what kind of soup Mike Mann had for breakfast would be a more appreciated topic.
Paul Vaughan, LOD and AAM vary with tidal forcing and energy distribution. They are signals that lag the forcing events. ENSO and SOI are signals not inputs. You can make the most beautiful model fit using these signals, but since they are interrelated you can end up like Webster double dipping “oscillations” by mixing them with the forcing that caused the oscillations to begin with.
For example Webster removes LOD and SOI leaving a “tiny” solar forcing that caused most of the LOD and SOI to begin with. He just ran around in a circle. That will bring him to the point he has to focus on the internal response tendencies that vary over time. The internal harmonics can lock to any external forcing until it finds a different frequency that is a closer match.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWToUATLGzs&w=640&h=360]
If that link works that is 32 signals finding synchronization. It doesn’t take much energy to change things especially when the change is only a few tenths of a degree or a few milliseconds per decade.
Now if you have found something truly remarkable in LOD and AAM, perhaps a quick clear and concise abstract might generate some interest.
I’m withdrawing my offer of free tutoring and taking a break from the solar-terrestrial-climate discussion. I’m considering leaving the solar-terrestrial-climate discussion behind completely after I finish up some solar-ozone explorations.
I suspect an explanation may be there, but won’t be easy to demonstrate with facility.
========
kim, it’s not about explaining. It’s about observing. Then others should realize their narratives aren’t consistent with observation. If they can’t see this independently, then we have a new observation about human nature. (Have you ever heard of the Peter Principle?) All the best kim!…
The same to you, Paul; if only we could see better the narratives would tumble faster.
==============
My apologies, your figure 3 not your figure 1
Pingback: Another Peer-Reviewed Paper Predicting the Cessation of Global Warming Will Last At Least Another Decade | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations
Pingback: Another Peer-Reviewed Paper Predicting the Cessation of Global Warming Will Last At Least Another Decade | Watts Up With That?
Pingback: Another Peer-Reviewed Paper Predicting the Cessation of Global Warming Will Last At Least Another Decade | Deft News
Dr Curry, was the IPCC aware of this paper before they published the SPM?
I ask because the new updated chart shows they can argue models are consistent with observations, even if temperatures are flat all the way out to 2035.
Oh I think their money supply will dry up long before then…
Yeah, a luxury we can no longer afford.
============
Or need…
I do wonder how much of the data is going to come back online after the budget fiasco in the states is sorted out though. I expect some of the more inconvenient material will be disappeared during the hiatus.
“… they can argue models are consistent with observations…”
They will conclude that WHATEVER the data says. If they can get away with saying the pathetic level of volcanism since Mt P (about 2% of Mt P ) has “contributed” to the pause, there is no limit to the BS they will lay on the lay public in order to lay them.
Every asked where the term lay public comes from? It’s because they always get laid by those in authority.
If this pattern is repeatable, 9 years building from 2006 may mean a new El Nino will develop in 2014…
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=541
Seeing that peak in 1989 rang a bell of a persisting question I had about the original of pulse that hit AO in same years.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=551
All part of the fundamental connectedness of all things. ;)
Judith,
Very interesting.
What is the magnitude of the ‘wave’ influence on global average temperature, peak to valley? Since the wave seems to be a northern hemisphere process, does it then mainly impact northern hemisphere temperatures with ~twice the global impact? If so, could that account for some of the recent divergence between land and ocean warming, since the northern hemisphere has most of the land mass?
well the stadium wave suggests temporal boundaries for comparing 30-year climatologies. Comparing SH to NH hemispheres, and then land and ocean, would refine understanding of all this.
It just so happens I have recently finished a look at minimum temperature trends.
http://www.science20.com/virtual_worlds/blog/global_warming_really_recovery_regional_cooling-121820
In view of the similarity I’ve shown above between LOD and Nino1.2 SST and LOD and AO and AO and d/dt(CO2) at Mauna Loa HA, it is probably not just a NH effect.
I’m sure there’s plenty more to be done on this idea.
Let me just point out, for posterity:
It is 2013 and realists such as myself are well aware that the strong warming from rising CO2 goes on and will lead to global warming continuing over coming decades.
The above comments by wishful thinking skeptics coming up with all manner of ways to ignore this elephant in the room are simply delusional, do not be under the illusion hindsight that they had any sort of “point” or justification.
I always love it when someone starts out by calling themselves a “realist”. That way I know everything they are about to tell is RIGHT.
It’s like a newspaper called “The Truth” (or Pravda in Russian). How can you doubt what you read therein? It must be true , it says so on the wrapper.
Stating the date is always good too.
Heck, if you know what year it is, you’re obviously well up on current affairs and the state human knowledge in all fields of science. Who’s going to argue with a guy who knows what year it is? Not me !
This is for people in the future who might stumble on this thread as a historical document and get the impression that no-one knew the world would warm. I want to make the situation perfectly clear to them.
So you think the whole UN and all its records will be wiped from the face of the earth? With no historical trace?
But this blog will survive?
And if you really think warming has stopped or global cooling is coming you should have no problem with me stating this!
I see no one having a problem with it, other than correcting the fallacies, and laughing at the ignorance.
Worry not polpot, we have no problem with you making a twerp of yourself in public.
Update of LOD vs Nino1.2 plot with most recent data:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=553
Despite correlation in form, the negative peaks in dLOD see much smaller change in SST. Is this evidence of asymmetry in Nino/Nina mechanisms that could lead to warming a la Tisdale. ?
LOD seems to oscillate fairly evenly whereas SST seems to have severely attenuated negative excursions.
This goes against the prevailing assumption that all ‘internal’ oscillations are random , net-zero processes. This opens the possibility of varying frequency and amplitude of these changes in SST having decadal scale warming / cooling effects.
Pingback: Words of wisdom from Ed Lorenz | Climate Etc.
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?
Pingback: Quando il clima fa la “Ola” | Climatemonitor
Pingback: pindanpost
Some people might be interested in the following blog post:
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/connecting-planetary-periodicities-to.html
Connecting the Planetary Periodicities to Changes in the Earth’s LOD
Which is under discussion at my repost of Ian’s article here:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/10/15/ian-wilson-connecting-the-planetary-periodicities-to-%ef%bb%bfchanges-in-the-earths-length-of-day/
Paul Vaughan, I found a spread sheet error in this post that was probably confusing.
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2013/10/charging-gear-shift-solarenso-charging.html
If you look, the internal lags of solar/tidal forcing in the oceans can have frequencies close to orbital forcing but off just enough to be irritating. You appear to end up with changing “pseudo-harmonics” shared by both systems. That is not a solution since none of the cycles are constant, but an interesting possibility.
That’s a flock of Swan Kings parading in front of the radar beam, or mebbe being sucked into the engine intake, whichever you prefer.
============
More of a NASCAR road course :)
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XCLgs4asJvM/Ul1pCAhUt8I/AAAAAAAAJ9c/7h6dWbtNFwU/s640/one+solar+15.75+with+southern+ocean.png
That is an interesting fit for the Sun Done It gang though
More detailed look at Nino 1.2 SST and LOD shows LOD lagging SST by 7.6 years
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=554
companion plot showing how short term SST change correlates with d/dt(LOD):
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=556
With both annual and decadal change in LOD lagging change in SST it is difficult to see LOD as driver.
Sorry, Tallbloke, it’s looks like it’s Johnny come lately after all.
TB says: “A slowing of Earth causes water to pile up against Africa, not America.”
You seem to be looking at the wrong side of S. America !
The Pacific is far more water than south Atlantic and the Americas present a much more complete barrier than Africa does. Obviously , what you are attributing to Africa also happens in the Pacific, in spaded.
That is where we probably need to look for ocean / solid earth interactions. In view of the recognised importance of ENSO any inertially caused up-welling or modulation of ENSO cycle could easily have an effect on global climate.
Nino 1.2 shows the strongest, sharpest signal suggesting it is the ‘epicentre’ of the effects.
There may be another, more complex, way to account for the phase relationships, such as a recurrent deep water tide where the phase would not be a slave, as it is when assuming a direct correlation
Goodman, Look up Atmospheric Angular Momentum and how well it aligns with SOI. It is pure physics.
Greg: With both annual and decadal change in LOD lagging change in SST it is difficult to see LOD as driver. Sorry, Tallbloke, it’s looks like it’s Johnny come lately after all.
As the paper says (citing Gross), the changing AAM and oceans, precip etc can only account for 14% of low frequency LOD change. So the rest, if my correlation means anything, is externally imposed. The energy transfer mechanism has to be EM. This will produce an orbit to spin coupling through a back-EMF on the magnetosphere. So especially the atmosphere (but also to some extent the ocean) will be affected by externally imposed changes in rotation rate via the global electrical circuit before the solid Earth is because they’re several thousand times lighter. Which means they have much (much) less inertia. So if I’m right, LOD is actually a lagging proxy for an EM force externally imposed on the Earth system which is produced by the motion and position of (predominantly) the gas giants in the interplanetary magnetic field, as my correlation demonstrates. Probably sounds far-fetched to you, but I have further evidence I can’t reveal yet which will strengthen the case.
TB says: “A slowing of Earth causes water to pile up against Africa, not America.”
You seem to be looking at the wrong side of S. America ! The Pacific is far more water than south Atlantic and the Americas present a much more complete barrier than Africa does.
My original comment used the Atlantic as exemplar. You didn’t say you’d switched basins. No matter.
I did not “switch basins”, I’m saying Atlantic is not ‘exemplar’ , for reasons given, an YOU need to switch basins. Then the slow down acts in the right sense.
Greg: We were both right, but I read your comment too hastily and mistakenly thought you were addressing my example – apologies. Both basins are important in terms of long term OHC. The Pacific is more flamboyant in its effects on worldwide Air temps due to ENSO events I’d agree.
The Atlantic also has its own ‘teleconnected’ events though, and I think my idea may give a clue as to how the ‘teleconnection’ operates.
Question for you. How did you determine the 7.4 yr lag of LOD behind SST to such a precision? I looked at your plots but couldn’t see how you did that.
7.6 year lag? That should be great for postdicting climate and predicting LOD.
“There may be another, more complex, way to account for the phase relationships, such as a recurrent deep water tide where the phase would not be a slave, as it is when assuming a direct correlation”
Tides and currents. A maximum current typically lags the peak tide. Heck you get lags long enough, next thing you know you are into the next Solar cycle.
This is consistent with my comment below. If I’m right (no guarantee), we’ll see atmospheric changes first, due to it’s low inertia, followed by oceanic changes some years later (7.6 sounds ok), followed by a well damped oscillation in the Earth’s core which shows up in low frequency filtered LOD around two decades later. My original blog post described the bi-decadal lag, but it isn’t labelled on the plot I posted (my bad).
Oops, my comment *above*, not below.
Great Heavens!
============
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” – Hamlet (1.5.166-7
It fits the observations. Low mass parts of the Earth system (the atmosphere) react first due to low inertia, followed by the oceans ~7.4 years later (thanks Greg), followed by the solid Earth 2-3 decades later.
That’s why I get a ~24 year lag between my Planetary curve and the corresponding change in LOD. And that explains why LOD is tail end Charlie in the stadium wave. LOD is a lagged proxy for the actual driver of the changes – and EM coupling between the IMF and Earth’s magnetosphere and core magnetic field.
It explains atmospheric co-rotation too…
Oops – *an* EM coupling – not *and* EM coupling
What’s really cool, tb, is that I can almost understand this.
===========
tallbloke, to me the atmosphere is just about a red herring. Once you smooth out the noise just a touch to match some of the natural internal smoothing you get things like this.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XCLgs4asJvM/Ul1pCAhUt8I/AAAAAAAAJ9c/7h6dWbtNFwU/s1600/one+solar+15.75+with+southern+ocean.png
Depending on ocean mixing efficiency, SST can take the faster response time or the slower lag time. You may think it is locked at 20 or so years with the Hale cycle, but it shifts to internal frequencies closest to the current dominate forcing.
I have some Holocene solar plus indo pacific warm pool paleo that really shows the shifts.
Kim: Good, Nature is simple once you find the right way to look at it.
Capt: Interesting. Are you integrating the SSN in some way like I did here?
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/sst-model1.png
That plot take an ocean equilibriu value of 40SSN and integrates the historical SSN deprting from that value. I’m interested to know how you’ve got a similar curve for your 47.25yrta
Thanks
Learn some manners, Pukite.
Greg,
You are comparing oranges with apples. The short-term changes in LOD variations ( i.e. less than or equal to a few years) will obviously lag behind atmospheric changes in temperature because this is the component of the change in LOD that results from transfer of angular momentum back and forward to maintain rough conservation.
What you should be worried about is change in LOD on time scales longer than about 4 or 5 years. This is the one that is directly linked to the Moon.
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/connecting-planetary-periodicities-to.html
Connecting the Planetary Periodicities to Changes in the Earth’s LOD
Maybe you should say how you ‘removed’ the short term cycles. Anomalies? LP filter (which)?
It’s gone out of fashion recently but reproducibility is the cornerstone of science.
(18.6000 x 8.8504) / (18.6000 + 8.8504) = 5.9969 Julian years
Indeed Whorf and Keeling pointed that out in their 1997 paper.
As I pointed out in May on a thread you contributed to. immediately above my post:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/26/new-el-nino-causal-pattern-discovered/#comment-1325673
I also had quite lengthy exchange with agfosterjr about the possibility of a perigee tide transporting enough energy to affect long term climate.
I don’t know why you come in here referring me to something you wrote yesterday like you’re showing me something I didn’t know.
I really don’t understand your “apples and oranges” comment.
http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/models/PM/PM_gravi_tab.html
[sourcecode]
3 0 0 0 1 -1 1 056.555 365.24219 1.19 .21 -.19 1.40
3 0 1 0 1 -2 1 057.455 193.55971 1.30 .37 -.17 2.91
3 0 0 0 1 0 2 065.545 27.431826 -.05 -.21 .01 -1.68
3 0 0 0 1 0 1 065.555 27.321582 0.89 3.97 -.11 32.39
3 0 0 0 1 0 0 065.565 27.212221 0.14 .62 -.02 5.09
3 0 -1 0 1 2 1 073.655 14.698136 -.02 .07 .00 .56
3 0 1 0 1 0 1 075.455 13.718786 -.11 .33 .01 2.66
[/sourcecode]
excerpt from table of polar motion periods. 27.3 is close to std perigee month.
this is modulation triplet: Modulation beats: 27.3216 * 6798.3963
= 18.613 years.
I found a similar triplet in Arctic ice extent:
p1=27.1304; pc=27.5987; p2=28.0934
Modulation beats: 27.6035 * 1582.9391
1583/365.25=4.33 years
In this case the modulating frequency suggests half the perigee cycle: 8.85 / 2 , though 4.34 (not 4.43) has come up elsewhere and may be distinct.
What concerns me a little about the LOD data is that a lot of tidal variations have been removed already. Is the signal we are looking for, still there even?
Since obs trumps models, maybe they need to change thier solid earth model !
Greg said:
Maybe you should say how you ‘removed’ the short term cycles. Anomalies? LP filter (which)?
It’s gone out of fashion recently but reproducibility is the cornerstone of science.
Response:
I will stick a reference to the following paper in my blog post so that you can get up to speed. The reference describes the method;
Geomagnetic jerks and a high-resolution length-of-day profile for core studies. R. Holme and O. de Viron
Geophys. J. Int. (2005) 160, 435–439
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2004.02510.x
Greg:
You can have a look at the data yourself:
For the variation of the length of day, we used the COMB2003
series (Gross et al. 2004), which gives daily excess LOD. This
series is available from the JPL’s Space Geodetic Science and
Applications Group by anonymous ftp from euler.jpl.nasa.gov/
keof/combinations/2003
Thanks for the specifics Ian. I have been using EOP for daily which only goes back as far as 1962 and Obs Paris which is longer but only annual values. Before 1780 it’s clearly a spline fit or similar to very sparse data.
I presume EOP is the same as JPL since they are a major input to EOP.
Here is a power spectrum from 1780 onwards of the Paris data. Rather poor resolution with just annual data but it gives an idea.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=557
There’s the 4-5 year peak I noted about in Nino SST something around 13 that matches what I found in many basins SST.
8.5 could be interesting on better resolution data.
16.75 is interesting since this the other half of the Whorf-Keeling calculation, though I don’t recall seeing this in any SST. Curious.
There’s also 11.4 and a strong 22 , just off camera in my plot.
Really nothing around 6.0 ( small peak around 6.45).
I’ll have a look at 1962+ hi-res , though the data set is a bit short it should tell us about 6 year periods OK.
I’m curious about this 16.75 peak which I have not found in SST. In view of notes I see about ‘know’ tidal effects being removed from EOP data and following links that seem to lead to rather trivial harmonic models I’m wondering whether we are not YET AGAIN into data correction land.
There seems to no time series left of Earth that had not been beggared by _assumed_ corrections based on computer models.
Needs more digging and checking but I suspect this peak may be correction artefact, not data.
From jpl file comments:
[cite]
Excess length-of-day (LOD) estimates
from the combined Earth orientation
series COMB2003_MIDNIGHT.
Note that all Yoder solid Earth tides
(including those longer than monthly)
and Kantha, Stewart and Desai (JGR,
vol. 103, pp. 12639-12647,1998) long
period (Mf, Mf’ and Mm) ocean tidal
corrections to the Yoder model have
been removed from this series, as
have the subdaily tides, since they
have not been added back to the LOD
values reported here.
[/cite]
An intriguing feature of the stadium-wave hypothesis is that it purports to explain a 15-year phenomenon, namely the recent hiatus in global warming, in terms of 300 years worth of data.
If true this would be extraordinary, since the climate during 1970-2013 bears little resemblance to anything we know about the preceding three centuries.
A litmus test for whether such an explanation is even possible might be the difference between land and sea temperatures. The global record for these only goes back to 1850, in particular the result of subtracting HadSST2 (Hadley sea surface temperature) from CRUTEM3 (Climate Research Unit land temperature). You can see this difference here. (Had Paul Clark implemented my suggestion of a feature for adding and subtracting data sources this link could have more simply been a pointer to WoodForTrees.)
If the stadium-wave explanation of the recent hiatus also explains this land-sea difference, I’d say you had a real winner here.
LOL HadSST2 has 0.5 deg C step “adjustment” banged into SST in 1946.
Not even Hadley centre regard that as correct now. Yet you use it to compare to land SAT.
One of the reasons late 20th c. warming ‘looks’ unusual is because the temperature records have been pervasively adjusted to give that impression.
Careful what you ask for. ;)
I’ve added HadSST3 and CRUTEM4v to the above graph. The red curve is what I had before; it doesn’t climb as steeply on the right as what replaced it.
If the stadium wave hypothesis finds it easier to explain one than the other I’d be fine with that, whichever it is.
@Greg: One of the reasons late 20th c. warming ‘looks’ unusual is because the temperature records have been pervasively adjusted to give that impression.
This thread is about the stadium wave. I’d be more than happy to use whatever authoritative long-term land and sea temperature data it explains best. Just point me at it.
Vaughan Pratt: An intriguing feature of the stadium-wave hypothesis is that it purports to explain a 15-year phenomenon, namely the recent hiatus in global warming, in terms of 300 years worth of data.
That’s a bit extreme, I’d say. All they do is raise the possibility that they may be related.
If the stadium-wave explanation of the recent hiatus also explains this land-sea difference, I’d say you had a real winner here.
Maybe. A spiral wave confined to the Pacific Ocean may have nothing whatever to with an aggregate land-sea difference.
I am glad you stopped in. I made a modest comparison of WebHub’s lnCO2 + model with your model.
@VP: purports to explain … the recent hiatus in global warming
@MM: That’s a bit extreme, I’d say. All they do is raise the possibility that they may be related.
Tell that to the press. I’m just repeating what I’ve gleaned from the press reports, which seem to me much closer to “explained” than merely “related.”
I made a modest comparison of WebHub’s lnCO2 + model with your model.
Much appreciated. You preferred Web’s residual to mine; could I fix that by reducing my nine parameters to five with a corresponding increase in my residual?
Vaughan Pratt: Much appreciated. You preferred Web’s residual to mine; could I fix that by reducing my nine parameters to five with a corresponding increase in my residual?
Depends on what the 5 parameters are: in WebHub’s model, the residual about the ln(CO2) trend is accounted for by relations to other physical measurements.
Ian Wilson: “You can have a look at the data yourself:”
Good idea, here it is .
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=558
There is a conspicuous lack of ANYTHING around 6 years.
I think it’s interesting what you are trying to do and I’m not against that line if thinking but you need start doing some proper spectral analysis.
I really don’t like your graphs were you have one plot over the other and draw suggestive lines between the two. The separation of the two plots makes any direct visual comparison impossible and your lines try to guide the eye to forgone conclusions.
I think you may be fooling yourself into seeing things you expect to be there. A common human problem.
I’m not sure what the aim is with these ‘adjusted’ datasets but there is a strong danger that they are removing exactly what you are looking anyway (is that why there’s nothing at 6y ?!). Plus all these models of tides make me twitchy, there’s probably more that hint of false assumptions and defective model artefacts being injected as well.
Here’s similar treatment of EOP LOD:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=559
There is something around 6y but it does not seem centred on 6.0
Greg,
Your joking of course? Do you realize that you should be looking for spectral signals that are the beat periods of following periods:
anomalistic month = 27.554549878 days
sidereal month = 27.321661547 days
draconic month = 27.212220817 days
synodic month = 29.530588853 days
So it is not surprising that you do not see
the 18.6000 year and 8.8504 year signals.
Greg,
You are actually seeing the signal in your power spectral density plot:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=558
Your 60 d filter shows peaks at:
8.8504 years/2 = 4.43 years
8.8504 years/4 = 2.21 years
I think that you should lengthen your filter to ~ 200-300 days – 60 days is too short.
Try generating a signal that consists of the sum of two sine waves with different periods and then determine its PSD. I am sure that you will not pick up the beat frequency between the two. The PSD will just show the frequencies of the individual sine waves.
Greg said:
“I really don’t like your graphs were you have one plot over the other and draw suggestive lines between the two. The separation of the two plots makes any direct visual comparison impossible and your lines try to guide the eye to forgone conclusions.”
My response.
The lines are vertical to within ~ 0.2 degrees, as they are drawn with a special CAD compass, and they are carefully placed at the designated dates set by the data. I have done everything to remove my personal bias – yet you still complain.
You could determine the positions of the signal peak in the rate of change of LOD graph then plot them against the respective times for Perigean Spring tidal peaks. This would allow you to a linear regression analysis to see the quality of the fit.
Greg quotes the following:
“Note that all Yoder solid Earth tides
(including those longer than monthly)
and Kantha, Stewart and Desai (JGR,
vol. 103, pp. 12639-12647,1998) long
period (Mf, Mf’ and Mm) ocean tidal
corrections to the Yoder model have
been removed from this series, as
have the subdaily tides, since they
have not been added back to the LOD
values reported here.
[/cite]”
If that’s the case then they clearly have not
done a good job, because the 6 year cycle
in the absolute strength of lunar tides is still
clearly visible in the data.
Ian, I just found I made an error in processing those files , silly typo means they are nonsense. I’ll repost corrected. All comments about PSD graphs are erroneous for now.
“You could determine the positions of the signal peak in the rate of change of LOD graph then plot them against the respective times for Perigean Spring tidal peaks. This would allow you to a linear regression analysis to see the quality of the fit.”
Maybe that’s what you should have done. You need numbers not hand placed lines (even it you do it with CAD does not make the placement objective. That was my point).
Greg,
Point taken. Sometimes I just do it the quick and dirty way and that’s not up to scratch. You are a much more careful person than I and we need people like you to keep everyone honest.
Thanks for the humble and honest comment. (Another things that seems to have gone out of fashion recently).
We always need the critical eye of others. If my comments help you present what you are doing in a more rigorous way, I’ll be very pleased.
Quick and dirty is fine for a first look but when writing articles and papers a bit of rigour is indispensable. There are plenty of people who want to rubbish this sort of work, so it’s important not to provide an easy target.
Bate my tongue. I’m all ears.
============
Here’s corrected spectral plots:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=562
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=561
You get significant 6-ish in both datasets.
7 to 10y looking suspiciously flat in Comb2003.
Circa 12 and 22 vary significantly.
Comb shows a triplet centred on 1.6 y with a split indicating 37y, EOP shows a doublet either side of 1.6 indicating 64 y.
I’m sure you will associate 1.6y with VE. That the split shows such a difference spells caveat emptor of what is being done with the data.
Like I said above, some digging in the doc required to understand what they are remove, how and why!
I don’t think there’s any AGW motiviated rigging but what are these modified data destined for and why remove tides and stuff?
Does this risk to remove some of what you are looking for?
2.4 QBO consistent and very strong in both.
Yndestad find a lunar tidal frquency at 74 years in the north atlantic
37 years matches SSB work I’ve been doing too.
Last night I nailed a good chunk of the Moon’s orbital anomalies to Jupiter.
QBO in NIno1.2 is split in to triplet too (with weak central pk). The modulation is 34 years. cf above.
Also very strong 1.43y, and at 1.134y=414 day : polar nutation.
More grist for future work on linkage of global systems.
Greg,
If you look at:
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2010/03/why-do-long-term-periodicities-in-enso.html
FRIDAY, MARCH 26, 2010
Why Do the Long-Term Periodicities in the ENSO Appear in the Flux Optical Depth Anomalies for Water Vapor in the Earth’s Atmosphere?
You will see that I discuss a paper by Nikolay Sidorenkov entitled:
Chandler Wobble of the Poles as Part of the Nutation
of the Atmosphere–Ocean–Earth System by N. S. Sidorenkov
Astronomy Reports, Vol. 44, No. 6, 2000, pp. 414–419. Translated from AstronomicheskiÏ Zhurnal, Vol. 77, No. 6, 2000, pp. 474–480.
ABSTRACT:
The paper presents calculated spectra of El Niño Southern oscillation (ENSO) indices. The ENSO spectra have components with periods that are multiples of the Earth’s free (1.2 years) and forced (18.6 years) nutation periods. Analysis of a 41-year series of exciting functions for the atmospheric angular momentum confirmsthe existence of such periodicity. Nutation waves responsible for the El Niño phenomena in the ocean, theSouthern oscillation in the atmosphere, and the presence of subharmonics of the Chandler period (1.2 years) and superharmonics of the lunar period (18.6 years) in the ENSO spectra are described. A model for the nonlinear nutationof the Earth–ocean–atmosphere system is constructed. In this model, the ENSO, acting at frequencies of combinational resonances, excites the Chandler wobble of the Earth’s poles. At the same time, this wobble interacts with the nutation motions of the atmosphere and World Ocean.
In the paper he said:
“However, in the Earth–ocean–atmosphere system, nonlinear oscillations and excitation of the [Chandler Wobble] occur primarily at combinational
frequencies of the Chandler frequency (with periods of 2.4, 3.6, 4.8, and 6.0 years), rather than at the principal resonant frequency.”
These are really close to the 2.4, 3.6, 4.7, and 6.2 that you find in PSD of the rate of Change of LOD. You frequencies are also close to some of the sub-multiples of the 18.6 year
18.6/ 8 = 2.33,
18.6/5 = 3.72,
18.6/4 = 4.65,
18.6/3 = 6.2
I think you are onto something important here.
Well spotted. I tend not to test notice odd harmonics, which is a failing.
So many patterns in climate seem more like full-wave rectified cosine than straight harmonic variations. The frequency spectrum of such a rectified wave has strong odd harmonics.
Greg, “The frequency spectrum of such a rectified wave has strong odd harmonics.”
Yes it does and since the internal response isn’t “tuned” all that well it shifts from ~2.xx to 6.xx to 11.xx to 15.xx to 20.xx to 31.xx etc by region. The 31.5 year estimate for cumulative solar forcing seems to be a good, at least for now, reference IMO.
Huh? 2.xx shifts to 31.5 ? You’ve lost me. How do you get 31.5 from all that? Better explanation needed, I don’t get your point at all.
Greg, in the ENSO region of the tropics there is an ~27 month or 2.25 year lag of solar impact, close to the 2.4 mentioned and there is also an ~94month lag 7.8 years, which is close to the 7.6, but not exact. If you step up to the next dominate frequencies, ~11.25 solar and ~18.6 sol/lunar, you have an internal mean of ~15 years, but with those pesky lags. 15.75 years is approximately the average internal response frequency to those to external forcings. Then you have a second over of 31.5 and a third over of 47.25 years. Shifting between these internal response frequencies can produce temporary phase locking with external forcing, but the internal dampening tends to drive response frequencies toward 31.5 +/- 2.25 “average” internal base frequency. After the 31.5 longer periods are noticeable but have a major impact on amplitude, only lag.
Selvam has a list of internal frequencies in one of her paper in the CERN archive but I am having issues right now with access.
that should be no major impact on amplitude
Sounds interesting in principal. Do you have anything sufficiently documented to reproduce there various effects and delays?
Greg, “Sounds interesting in principal. Do you have anything sufficiently documented to reproduce there various effects and delays?”
No, what is happening is that I am finding issues with the data, both solar and Volcanic. I have looked at four different volcanic aerosol reconstructions and all miss a volcano here or there. The Crowley et. al. appears to be the best so far and includes both hemisphere separately which is a big help. That indicates that Solar reconstructions include some volcanic impact, likely optical depth causing sunspot count issues and interfering with isotopes near the surface.
Interestingly, the Crowley volcanic aerosols indicate a hemispheric imbalance that very closely matches the internal ~60 year cycle except for the 40s “bucket” issue.
Then that is what the simple trailing mean was for, finding problems not solutions :)
Woof!. Oops.
====
Wankypedia:
“chandler wobble has a period of 433 days. This wobble, or nutation, combines with another wobble with a period of one year,
so that the total polar motion varies with a period of about 7 years.”
IERS Annual Report 2000:
Irregularities of theEarth’s Rotation
Polar motion
The main components of polar motion are a free oscillation (Chand-
ler wobble) with a period of 1.2 year and an oscillation which is
forced by the seasonal mass redistribution in the atmosphere and
oceans. The beating period of the two terms is approximately 6
years. A slow, irregular drift towards the west is superimposed to
the cyclic variation.
Table 4b. Earth rotation variations due to zonal tides with periods longer than 35 days
1095.17 2.9956
1305.47 3.574
3232.85 8.85
3399.18 9.306
6790.36 18,590
411.78 = 1.125y= 9/8 ; synodic , perigean months.
=====
3232.85 8.85
3399.18 9.306
Taking average _frequency_ gives 3313.93d=9.07 years.
this is Scafetta’s 9.1 +/- 0.1 also reported in BEST paper recently featured on this site.
Unfortunately this is the frequency that Hadley processing of SST takes out:
http://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/icoad_v_hadsst3_ddt_n_pac_chirp.png
Tides are complex. Don’t go too hard on expecting neat harmonics everywhere.
I have already shown above Nino1.2 SST seems to sit on top of a variation that matches closely to LOD changes. (Rather than dLOD).
That seems to provide a direct link between zonal tides and longer term (decadal) SST.
what is the difference between LOD changes and dLOD?
LOD : length of day as deviation from 86400s , it’s still length of day.
dLOD incremental difference in LOD (day to day, year to year, whatever). It’s a discrete approximation to rate of change: d/dt(LOD).
Scan back to graphs I linked above (search for ‘climategrog’), you will see that short-term change in Nino1.2 SST matches peaks in dLOD. However, the bottom of SST peaks ‘sit’ on top of straight LOD.
Now just riffing on that observation : that means SST is partly dLOD plus LOD.
SST=a.dLOD+b.LOD
a.dLOD=b.LOD-SST
d/dt(LOD)=k.LOD -SST ; k=b/a
Now that is a classic relaxation response (first order ODE) with SST driving LOD. That all ignores the 7.6 year delay which makes it all a lot less simple. Not sure I want to get into that ….
Greg, here is an example of why I prefer to avoid extreme precision.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Kb7ccx1Xd9A/UmBWDLFKnnI/AAAAAAAAKAk/7RXikZDSAHo/w579-h345-no/volcanic+aerosol+imbalance.png
Using the 31.5 cumulative mean for solar, once I added volcanic forcing, things just didn’t look right. Well, there is a larger than I expected imbalance in aerosol forcing by hemisphere. I imagine optical depth impacts how many sun spots you can see through a pinhole camera or a weaker telescope, ’cause now solar is a bit more suspect than before.
Looking at the LOD part of this again:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=554
This confirms my earlier impression that long term change in LOD could account of ENSO events. Remembering that LOD is inverted in these plots we see a steady _decrease_ in LOD from early 70’s to mid 80’s. This will lead to steady rise of cold, deep waters up the coast of S.America.
Then a strong reversal which is followed by strong El Nino.
The denser water rolls back towards the centre of Pacific basin and continues to be forced eastwards by momentum. Surface waters must flow back by gravity to fill the void. These are the warmer equatorial surface waters giving rise to the El Nino event.
Exactly the same pattern leads up to 1998 El Nino.
Oops. forgetting the 7.6 year delay again. Time for beer break.
For all the Cyclomaniacs attempting to upgrade “weather” oscillations in to “Climate” predictors, that Crowley and Unterman paper that found the potential Little Ice Age Volcanic trigger around 1243AD is interesting. This is a roughly look at the Global volcanic forcing for 1200 years plus the imbalance between hemispheres.
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2013/10/volcanic-aerosol-imbalance-whoda-thunk.html
I would think there is more to volcanic than meets the eye.
Slotine et al 2004: http://web.mit.edu/nsl/www/preprints/belgium04.pdf
Wyatt and Curry
Are you willing to consider Slotine et al.’s contraction analysis?
looks interesting, thx
Yes , sadly, I think someone is going to have to get to grips with that sort of approach to even begin to understand how climate operates.
That’s actually less of a problem than it may seem in view of the computer power available to climate modelling. It just requires employing mathematicians and systems analysts instead of economists and statisticians.
One aspect that seems to be somewhat overlooked in all the detrending , averaging and peak inverting running means is the change in variability.
Since LOD is one of the factors of the stadium wave a look at how the magnitude of changes in LOD varies over time reveals some important patterns that get lost to filtering and averaging.
changes in d/dt(LOD)
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=564
changes in d/dt(LOD) , with earth/ocean tides removed.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=565
Tisdale has suggested that the different climate effect of Nino/Nina events means they are not equal and opposite parts of a symmetrical ‘internal variation’ that can be assumed to have net zero long term effect: an underlying assumption of CAGW.
La Nina captures external energy , El Nino redistributes it to atmosphere.
My look at Nino1.2 in relation to LOD seems to show positive pulses on top of long term SST rather that symmetric change around that base. This seems in line with Tisdale’s hypothesis.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=554
If the effect is asymmetric, we should be paying more attention to variance, not averaging it out.
Goodman,
You need to look at how well the main anthropogenic and natural factors can be decomposed from the global warming signal.
The factors are
C – CO2 as the main control knob
S – SOI describing the subdecadal fluctuations in temperature
A – Aerosols from volcanic and man-made origin contributing sporadic noise
L – LOD variations describing multidecadal fluctuations
T – TSI fluctuations
I originally called it the SALT model but really CSALT seems like a better acronym
http://entroplet.com/context_salt_model/navigate
This is an 8-year lag filter showing how closely we can model the major inflection points
http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/1825/nw3r.gif
Turn off the filter and you can see how well it follows the subdecadal fluctuations. Global TCR of 2C for doubling of CO2, and 50% more for Land.
Cheers !
Learn some manner Pukite
Oh I forgot, you are British
Cheerio, old chap !
Pukite, which direction are your “lags”?
I would guess they are leads rather than lags since you seem to be trying to model causation. So you are a fitting 5.4 y lead on LOD where as stadium wave finds a lag that looks compatible with my 7.6y lag LOD lagging Nino1.2 SST. (Actually negated ang. vel, but that’s the same sense)
There may be some grounds for fitting a lead :
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/ssb-z-lod-temp.jpg
in which case you don’t need CO2 “control knob” any more.
TallBloke has to detrend, but good fit, agreed
Now what happened to the stuff he threw away when he detrended?
That is the CO2 control forcing.
Hubby:
How would you differentiate between an alleged co2 forcing and a missing variable (multi-decadal retention of solar heat in the oceans)? I use integrated SSN departing from the phenomenologically determined ocean equilibrium value as a proxy for solar and cloud effects on OHC in this plot:
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/sst-model1.png
Co2 worriers used to deny the ocean retained heat for long for this very reason, until the heat from their theoretical forcing went missing and they needed somewhere to bury it (deep oceans)
You can’t have it both ways. If missing co2 heat can hide in the ocean for 20 years, so can solar heat from above average solar activity 1934-2003
TallBloke, please consider what you have done:
You are essentially reconstructing the SST anomaly out of the AMO, which is just a detrended version of some part of the SST. That is why all the details are recovered in your fit.
I eliminated AMO from any fit when I found that the LOD as described by the Stadium Wave paper is the underlying factor describing the long term fluctuations. No need to detrend any longer.
Then you give the TSI as defined by an integrated (???) SSN an inordinately high proportion of the warming.
This is not valid unless you are intentionally trying to find a low value of TCR, since from a rhetorical point-of-view anything is valid.
> from a rhetorical point-of-view anything is valid.
I hope not. My bet is that love and light win.
Pukite, do you address everyone wish to discuss with by their surname where you come from? I doubt it, old chap.
Pukite, your sloppy use of running mean filter on your “effective SOI temp” will introduce a strong negative lobe artefact of 10/1.3371 =7.5 years
Your result of 0.99766 look like overfitting.
You have a bunch of time series with stochastic variability of suitable scale for GMT. You fit them with free ranging amplitude and phase parameters.
I doubt that the result can be taken to show anything about the physically real relation between any one of the variables and global temps.
This is basically Mannian regression with the added benefit of arbitrary phase to play with.
Heh heh.
All the data are from other sources. You can turn the lags to zero on the page. We know that the lags are there but the question is how much?
This is great stuff because it substantiates the sawtooth model of Prof. Vaughan Pratt.
Yes Pratt’s effort was also spurious exercise in over fitting.
Apart from that, you don’t substantiate anything as it stands, except your lack of understanding.
Firstly we don’t even know whether you have correct variables as drivers.
“The lags are there” but what if they are negative?
Like I said, Mannian regression ++
@GG: Pratt’s effort was also spurious exercise in over fitting.
An R2 of 100% would be symptomatic of over fitting. My model very slightly underfits. By using fewer parameters I could have made it underfit much more but why should I?
On the other hand, your SOI de-noising may be interesting if you have not been equally liberal in the way you derive it , Have you documented that to a degree that enables simple reproduction?
I documented it here:
http://contextearth.com/2013/10/04/climate-variability-and-inferring-global-warming/
But then the Stadium Wave topic came up and I replaced the AMO component with LOD, and this makes much more sense WRT to pulling out an dependent variable and replacing it with something that is more fundamental.
Overall the physics is doing energy balance via the Gibbs Free Energy differential
dG = Vdp – Sdt
Everyone of the components is an energy term.
“The SOI and its trendless mean, scaled to reflect its approximate contribution to the global temperature anomaly.”
You call that ‘documenting’ you method?
“The following figure shows how well the application of a scaled, lagged SOI and then a scaled, damped volcanic disturbance mapped to a growing trend matches that of the NASA’s GISS temperature record.”
Is that the nearest that you get to stating what the underlying assumption of magic is?
You apparently assume a quadratic rise, fitted with assumption of zero slope at beginning of data. Everything else is secondary and you build the WHOLE thing on this one, a priori assumption.
You are not even attempting to fit all the datasets you chose to the global temp record, you are trying to fit them to the residual of your arbitrary, a priori assumption.
Given the number of datasets used and the number of fitting parameters your correlation coeff is hardly surprising.
You have indeed “substantiated” Pratt’s result: over-fitting works to within a millikelvin . LOL
I initially used Eureqa for data exploration and it always gave me a cubic or quadratic with time. That happens to be a signature of fossil fuel growth so I eventually switched over to using logCO2 instead of time. Then since all the regressors were now linear, I switched over to a multiple linear regression approach using the CSALT set of explanatory variables.
That’s what is running behind the server
lm(y ~ c + s + a + l + t)
And then we can interpret what the results are telling us.
It really only started making sense when I replaced the AMO component with the LOD measure.
@GG: You have indeed “substantiated” Pratt’s result: over-fitting works to within a millikelvin . LOL
Overfitting produces an exact result, i.e to within way less than a nanokelvin. A fit to within a millikelvin or two is merely a good model.
[strike]”And then we can interpret what the results are telling us.”[strike]
then we can interpret the result of the assumptions built into the model we fitted. Nuance.
“I initially used Eureqa for data exploration and it always gave me a cubic or quadratic with time. ”
All on it’s own? You just opened the box and “Eureqa!” Must be right then.
Sure, you can fit a quadratic to most temp data . It was one of the first things I did in effect when looking at dT/dt and d2/dt2. That does not mean it is a correct analysis of the climate system.
However, if you fit quadratic without constraining it , it will not start with zero slope in 1880, it will have negative slope. So you already see your CO2 assumptions taking shape.
Neither does it mean it’s the only way to fit the time series you selected. Why not fit LOD first and then use the other TS to explain the resid.
“That’s what is running behind the server lm(y ~ c + s + a + l + t)”
Too late, you’ve already determined the result by starting with the quad CO2 assumption that then determining the lags. lm just tweeks it in.
FWIW, fitting exponential function to RCP CO2 data I got .99+ correlation from 1767 through 2013. . d2/dt2 is also flat as trend get scaled down by factor of 10,000 or so.
Found my exponential fit – should be scale down by 3448.
CO2ppm = 0.628556 * 1.021582576^(Yr-1767) + 277.58
(d/dx) a * b^x + c = a * b^x ln(b)
(d/dYr) CO2ppm = ln(1.0216) * 0.6286 * 1.02158^(Yr-1767)
(d2/dYr) CO2ppm = 0.000287 * 1.0216^(Yr-1767)
Unintelligible. This is a spoof, right?
Unintelligible. This is a spoof, right?
Sorry you feel confused and insulted. Not my intent.
I don’t “feel” confused or insulted. You just jump out of nowhere, drop some rather obscure model with no explanation and imagine we all have telepathic ability to read your mind and fill in the blanks as well as correct typos and parse your own personal maths nomenclature.
Unintelligible.
Well, your anger & confusion is plain.
And if you are asking for clarification, then your reply is also unintelligible. I lack telepathic ability to read your mind and fill in the blanks so a simple “Please clarify” is preferable – if that in fact is what you are on about.
“And if you are asking for clarification, then your reply is also unintelligible. ”
I’m not asking for anything , Certainly not your patronising lay-psychology therapy group comments about how I “feel”.
Rest assured, I am not angry , confused or insulted. Nor does not being able to parse your babble cause me any “pain”. I can handle it. I couldn’t give a damn.
If you posted something I presume ( now I know it’s not a joke ) that you wish people to read and understand it. Hence I thought it may help to inform you it was unintelligible.
If you felt threatened by my terse comment , I really sorry. I did not intend to cause you any pain or embarrassment.
Now if you’ll excuse me I have to go and meditate about my motivations for that aggression, I have group in the morning and I need to ‘process’ this before I go.
Greg Goodman – That’s always safe bet when faced with criticism. Go for some [hostility and abuse]. Works every time.
Except I was not criticizing.
When fitting CO2 with power functions (i.e. quadratic, cubic):
d2/dt on quadratic yields flat trend. So check – maybe no need for cubic.
Also holds true for exponential function fit:
CO2 = 0.628556 * 1.021582576^(Yr-1767) + 277.58 ppm
d2CO2/dYr = 0.00029 * 1.0216^(Yr-1767) ppm/Yr^2
@bi2hs: Except I was not criticizing.
Hey, bi2hs, cut GG some slack. He seems to have some sort of chip on his shoulder, god knows why, make allowance for it and speak kindly to him. I got into a hell of a fight with him back in January until I realized this.
@VP I got into a hell of a fight with him back in January…
I remember you were one hell of a gentleman. (Even thanked GG for his advice.) So I thank you for your advice and will try to make allowance for GG’s issues.
“Found my exponential fit – should be scale down by 3448.”
Sounds like this is something you assume we are already aware of. What is this referring to ? What is 3448 about?
Sure atm CO2 can be modelled as exp+const or quad+const , or indeed a thousand other things in view of the very short record with minimal curvature of the reliable data that we have to work on.
What is the point you are trying to make with this post?
@bi2hs: Also holds true for exponential function fit:
CO2 = 0.628556 * 1.021582576^(Yr-1767) + 277.58 ppm
Why not simplify this to 1.02158^(Yr-1788.75) + 277.58 ppm?
Also which RCP did you use? 2.6, 4.5, 6.0, 8.5?
@VPratt
Why not simplify this to 1.02158^(Yr-1788.75) + 277.58 ppm?
Thanks. And I also should point out it’s not a best fit (it zeroes at 1767, 1959 & 2013 by design). It’s only an example I used for discussion of d2/dt exponential CO2 fit.
Your explanation on page 4 is nice: Arrhenius-Hofmann law :)
Also which RCP did you use? 2.6, 4.5, 6.0, 8.5?
Good question. Am blocked from downloading RCP, so used BEST Temperature, CO2, and volcano data, sheet 1, cols x & y, “RCP Estimated for Comparison”.
And I assumed “RCP Estimated” means estimated by IIAS, not BEST. Hope my boast of high correlation to RCP isn’t bogus.
Ok, got it.
The RCPs I’ve seen only go back to 1850, looks like they’ve pushed it back another 85 years. I have no idea what data that was based on, but it doesn’t look like a simple formula hindcasting the rest.
I tried using Excel’s exponential fit, which gave 1.0143 instead of your 1.02158. Fits the left end better whereas what you have fits the right end better.
Anyway I get your point about merely using it to illustrate your point about (in effect) measuring curvature with the second derivative. Not often one sees “per year squared” in place of “per second squared”. :) (All I ask is one square meal per square year.)
btw, years 1765 & 1766 don’t look right.
I’m using OpenOffice 3.2.1 and the exponential regression is broke:
f(x) = 267.11 * 1^x
r2= 0.81 ha!
So I wrote a script that let’s me pick start, mid and end yrs. to force maybe better results with Mauna Loa. Still get 0.993 correlation with BEST RCP.
@VPratt
Not often one sees “per year squared” in place of “per second squared”
yah, and i have a bad habit of sometimes using atypical (some would say unintelligible) nomenclature. glad you didn’t blow your stack.
hey! would you happen to know how to mentally extract say the 23rd (integer) root of an 850 digit number? or any number which has two digit base and exponent? used to be a trick of mine in the 70’s. at that time I was pretty sure it was novel.
Vaughan Pratt
The exponential function you posted, 1.02158^(Yr-1788.75) + 277.58 ppm, apparently works for “curve fitting” the past atmospheric CO2 development over time, as BI2HS has remarked.
But there are two basic practical problems with the exponential formula for projecting future CO2 concentrations based on added human CO2 emissions:
First of all, em>it ignores projected future changers in human population growth rates (the folks generating all that projected future CO2).
The UN estimates that world population growth rate will level off over this century, with population reaching a bit more than 10 billion by 2100.
If one ties the projected increase in atmospheric CO2 to the increase in human population, one arrives at a much lower projected CO2 concentration by 2100, than if one simply ignores human population projections, as your straight exponential formula does.
But, of course, there has also been an increase in per capita human fossil fuel use and CO2 generation. This has increased a total of around 10% from 1970 to today. If we project (generously) that per capita CO2 generation will increase by 30% from today to 2100, we arrive at a projected CO2 concentration of around 650 ppmv by 2100 (around 250 ppmv above today), instead of around 1050 ppmv (around 650 ppmv above today), as the straight exponential projection would show.
The second fatal flaw in using the straight exponential projection for future CO2 concentrations is that it assumes that more fossil fuels will be consumed by 2100 than exist on our planet today.
Based on estimates by WEC 2010, the “inferred possible total recoverable fossil fuel resources” remaining in 2008, represented around 85% of all the resources that ever existed on our planet. IOW, we had used up around 85% of the original total by 2008. This estimate is significantly more optimistic than others (Hubbert et.al.).
But even using this optimistic estimate we could theoretically only reach a maximum CO2 level of:
385 ppmv + (385 – 280) * 0.85 / 0.15 = around 980 ppmv
That’s all there is down there, Vaughan – and it is highly unlikely that this remaining resource will be completely used up by 2100, isn’t it?
So using the straight exponential formula to project future CO2 concentration is absurd for these two reasons.
I don’t know how IPCC got to the CO2 levels by 2095 (1005 ppmv), which it projected in its “business as usual worst case scenario” RCP8.5, but surprisingly the curve follows your exponential formula fairly closely. It appears that the prognosticators used a goofy crystal ball and ignored the real world around them. The projected warming from this “doomsday case” is 3.7ºC above the 1986-2005 baseline value, with a range of 2.2ºC to 5.5ºC.
But, like your exponential formula, RCP8.5 also fails the “reality check” on the two counts listed above.
Max
Manacker,
Thank you for laying it out and explaining it so clearly. You have done it several times before, and each time helps. In the past I’ve sanity-checked some of your figures for 2050 and 2100 against Nordhaus’ figures in ‘A Question of Balance‘ http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/Balance_2nd_proofs.pdf
The projections I checked were temperature change and CO2 concentration (from memory).
Each time I checked, your figures were close to his projections. His projections use inputs from IPCC AR4 and are calibrated against the GCMs: http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/Accom_Notes_100507.pdf
I am wondering why people who want to discuss these issues as you three are doing here, don’t download the DICE-2013 and use it to do the calculations http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/. The default inputs for population growth rate, GDP per capita growth rate, emissions intensity per capita, fossil fuel reserves, etc. are variables in the model and people who are competent at driving these models can change them. I suspect all three of you can do this.
@manacker: Based on estimates by WEC 2010, the “inferred possible total recoverable fossil fuel resources” remaining in 2008, represented around 85% of all the resources that ever existed on our planet. IOW, we had used up around 85% of the original total by 2008. This estimate is significantly more optimistic than others (Hubbert et.al.).
Several questions, Max.
1. I don’t know what “85%” means. How much does WEC claim is remaining? Units of barrels of oil will do, or cubic feet of gas, or whatever.
2. Is that with or without fracking?
3. Why have you neglected biofuels? Currently they’re a relatively small fraction of total carbon-based fuels, but presumably that ratio will change as fossil fuels become scarcer, so shouldn’t you add them in to your estimate of when all the planet’s carbon-based fuels have been exhausted, not just fossil fuels? My understanding is that unlike fossil fuels biofuels are a renewable resource.
Apropos of fossil fuels running out, Max, I checked the WEC figures for proven reserves in 1993 and 2012 (give or take a year in each case) for each of coal, oil, and gas. Here they are in gigatonnes (using 1 bcm = 0.00073 gigatonnes for gas).
………..1993…2012
Coal….1032….892 (page 11)
Oil……..141…..223 (page 13)
Gas……103…..153 (page 15)
Starting from today’s level of 400 ppmv, if the 2012 proven reserves were completely consumed these should add respectively 125, 33, and 22 ppmv, bringing the total to 580 ppmv. This is based on conversion efficiencies (amount of carbon emitted to the atmosphere by complete combustion) of 70%, 76%, and 72% for respectively coal, oil, and gas (easily adjusted if you have different figures), divided by 2.13 to convert GtC to ppmv, then multiplied by 0.42 to give the fraction of emitted carbon retained in the atmosphere. (So complete combustion of 1 gigatonne of coal, oil, or gas should add respectively 0.138, 0.150, or 0.142 ppmv of CO2.)
580 ppmv is considerably less than what you obtained with your calculation of “385 ppmv + (385 – 280) * 0.85 / 0.15 = around 980 ppmv”. But that’s not surprising since multiplying by 0.85/0.15 (= 5.7) is not the way to calculate the remaining 15% based on your statement that we’ve already gone through 85%. Perhaps you meant
385 ppmv + (385 – 280) * 0.15 / 0.85
which would come to 403 ppmv, but that’s obviously too low since we’re hitting 400 ppmv even today.
In any event all of these calculations assume that our future use of fossil fuel will deplete the proven reserves. Since the proven reserves of oil and gas actually grew over the last 20 years, by respectively 60% and 50%, this does not seem like a particularly sound assumption. Maybe we’ll hit peak oil and/or peak gas at some point in the future, but our past attempts at estimating when have been dismal failures. More likely is that for the foreseeable future we’ll continue to find new reserves, and to develop new technologies for tapping into them. The demand will continue to rise, and, economics being what it is, the supply will rise to meet it.
If and when peak oil and peak gas are in sight, this may stimulate the biofuel market, which currently is not well motivated given today’s plentiful supplies of oil and gas. And even the current decline in proven reserves of coal is not strong enough to help biofuels: if the decline from 1032 to 892 Gt over the past 20 years continues at the same rate, namely 7 Gt less coal every year, we should continue to have coal for another 892/7 = 127 years.
Fake skeptics and deniers won’t do the combination of factors that I have laid out because they realize it won’t give the answers that they want to see.
That’s all there is to it. They refuse to be objective.
That’s always safe bet when faced with criticism. Go for some name calling. Works every time.
‘The top-of-atmosphere (TOA) Earth radiation budget (ERB) is determined from the difference between how much energy is absorbed and emitted by the planet. Climate forcing results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global climate, but the large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture.’ http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/reprints/Loeb_et_al_ISSI_Surv_Geophys_2012.pdf
There are large decadal fluctuations in TOA radiative flux that are caused by these decadal changes in ocean and atmosphere circulation – i.e. the stadium wave. These regimes last 20 to 40 years.
The difference in net TOA flux between the 1980’s and 1990’s was 1.4W/m^2. The change in greenhouse gas was – 0.6 W/m^2. So presumably the warming w/o greenhouse gases would have been 0.8 W/m^2. That is – most recent warming was related to natural variation.
It is further complicated by ENSO dragon-kings – extreme ENSO variability in 1976/1977 and 1998/2001. These alone provided most of the recent surface warming.
Everything in climate is completely deterministic. Nothing is random.
There are many undoubted facts in climate that webby seems immune to.
It is all such a simplistic nonsense.
WebHubTelescopeFake skeptics and deniers won’t do the combination of factors that I have laid out because they realize it won’t give the answers that they want to see.
Without some definition of “fake skeptics” and “deniers” that is a non-falsifiable assertion. You could mean anybody we have never heard of.
As for me and my comments, most of your responses to my comments are “non-responsive” — evasions, occasional insults, misquotations and such. Here it looks like you are evading or insulting Greg Goodman, but it is hard to tell since you don’t quote anything specific.
Marler, I was upset that they didn’t follow the recipe for 5-alarm chili that I laid out. I am not doing anything new, just presenting stuff that others have already demonstrated.
‘Wow, Chief actually believes that a 60 Hz AC power source will add a DC bias of 120 V or 240 V to a signal.’
“But if we don’t understand what is natural, I don’t think we can say much about what the humans are doing. So our interest is to understand — first the natural variability of climate — and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,” Tsonis said.
The relevant period is the late century warming – the residual warming in that period is some 0.05 degrees C/decade. Much less in the early century warming.
My only agenda is to move the debate on from idiots like webby.
@GGoodman
My point:
d2/dt = 0 argues against WHT’s cubic fit and for VPratt’s exponential fit.
I actually do it the correct way, which is to take the carbon emissions as an impulse and convolve that with a diffusional impulse response function. The latter happens to look a lot like the BERN model.
The CO2 profile matches very well and also models the 50% diffusional “absorption”. This is all documented BTW.
I only use a power-law fit if I need a quick heuristic.
ok,I get that. And I will say your model is cool and fun and possibly correct.
however, many have commented (and I agree ) that the model could also be vulnerable to sizable low frequency natural variation going undetected and erroneously attributed to CO2/anthro influences.
Do you think this is possible (not to say probable)?
WHT
Look at a 32 year (sync) low-pass brick filter (h/t Greg Goodman) applied to sunspot/hadcrut nh sst. The stadium wave resonance idea justifies larger scaling of sunspot impact than justified by irradiance fluctuation alone.
So I wonder if an ECS derived from your model might represent an upper boundary. What do you think?
Just think, what’s the amount of information where the agreement is found. Very, very small. Observing agreement at that level proves nothing, it doesn’t even present a significant hint of anything.
@ Pekka
I call sunspots a curious tease. Better to have used detrended ESRL AMO index. But government shutdown affects WoodForTrees.
Regardless. WHT’s model attributes low frequency variation to anthro influence. Think about the potential impact of low frequency stadium waves.
bi2hs,
“Look at a 32 year (sync) low-pass brick filter (h/t Greg Goodman) applied to sunspot/hadcrut nh sst. The stadium wave resonance idea justifies larger scaling of sunspot impact than justified by irradiance fluctuation alone.”
That is part of if, the hemispheres have different response times so there is more of a convolution response in the NH and a cross correlation in the SH. When you add hemispheric volcanic imbalances you improve the correlations. There are still ~90 year settling times which need to be considered or you have “climate” driving volcanic.
blueice2hotsea,
My main point here is that such a low frequency agreement is an extremely weak signal. 99.9% of such signals are spurious (almost certainly an underestimate). Weak signals are more interesting when they are supported by other arguments, but such a weak signal by itself does not raise interest in my mind.
A semi-quantitative physical argument could act as additional support. Such an argument tells that a plausible mechanism can be described that would lead to an effect of right order of magnitude. It’s important that some check of the potential strength of the mechanism is presented, because there are always effects that exist at some level, but are far too weak for being of significance.
When the observation has a high power and high statistical significance, then we have a valid reason for searching for the explanation, but the power of the indicator is really essential in that. A little low frequency data has only a low power as indicator.
Extracting signals from the noise is much easier if you have a model of the expected signal. That is true for the CSALT model when it comes to the smaller contributions such as TSI. The extracted TSI signal results in a scaling that is consistent with the theoretical estimates based on solar measurements.
TSI is a typical example of variable that has an obvious influence on temperatures and that has been present for so many periods that it’s contribution is likely to be easy to determine with fair accuracy.
SOI or some other ENSO indicator is another example, where the situation is almost as favorable, not quite, because the actual physical mechanism is more complex, but favorable enough anyway.
All multi-decadal effects are more problematic, because the mechanisms are not known as well, there are several indices, which may reflect same basic phenomena, and most importantly because good quality data does not cover many cycles. This last point means that it’s impossible to separate the real signal from noise that affects the same frequency domain.
@b2ihs: Look at a 32 year (sync) low-pass brick filter (h/t Greg Goodman)
That’s not a brick filter, it’s a good approximation to the F3 filter I used in my December AGU presentation (see Fig. 5). It’s therefore more like a gaussian filter (which is essentially identical to a 21-point binomial filter) but with better rejection of frequencies just above F3’s cutoff frequency.
applied to sunspot/hadcrut nh sst.
What point is being made with (a) northern hemisphere sea temperature (b) so aggressively filtered? Most of the ocean is in the Southern Hemisphere. This plot compares global ocean less aggressively filtered (green curve, simple 10-year moving average) with sunspots with 5-year moving average. Global sea temperature rises dramatically from 1910 to 1940 while sunspots barely change over that period. Sunspots increase between 1935 and 1960 while sea temperature declines between 1940 and 1975. Sunspots hit a local low in 1970 but sea temperature starts to climb in 1975 whereas the next strong sunspot peak isn’t until 1980. I don’t see any meaningful correlation here.
But government shutdown affects WoodForTrees.
Interesting correlation. WoodForTrees is a non-government UK site.
@ Vaughan Pratt
That’s not a brick filter…
Thank you. It’s not a sinc filter, it is a triple running mean. See Greg Goodman’s blog Data corruption by running mean filters. Sorry about that.
@ Pekka Pirilä
Point taken and perhaps well illustrated by this teasing graph.
Filtered sunspots are scaled up by a factor of 20 over unfiltered. So, even though the frequency and phase are about right, the power is negligible. Therefore, a good explanation might be random spurious correlation with insignificant resonant amplification.
Do I have that right?
@ Vaughan Pratt
What point is being made with (a) northern hemisphere sea temperature (b) so aggressively filtered?
Since AMO was AWOL, my idea was to detrend NH SST and use it as an AMO proxy like this. Then I was going to compare to TSI, but that series was too short! So I looked at sunspots.
My question had to do with vulnerability to low frequency resonance. So I got rid of higher frequency seasonal, solar cycle, volcanic, ENSO Hale, whatever. (Yes, probably could have perhaps used filtered FFT, instead.)
AMO sets the tempo for the Stadium Wave, but what sets the tempo for AMO? JC & Marcia Wyatt do not find solar to be a useful driver. OTOH WHT & Clive Best have found TSI useful for defluctuation and temp anomaly fitting.
And I have no clue why a private UK site has a seeming solidarity with a U.S. government shutdown. Regardless, ESRL AMO is now back on WoodForTrees.
@ Pekka Pirilä
Oops. The relative scaling factor is only 2, not 20. Would you still say not worth a second look? Thanks.
@ Vaughan Pratt
&
@blueice2hotsea
AMO sets the tempo for the Stadium Wave, but what sets the tempo for AMO?
the LOD and AMO: differential rotation between Earth inner (lopsided) core and outer liquid core, but ultimately of an unidentified solar origin:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/ITA.htm
bi2hs, recurrent patterns are kind of fun to pick out :)
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-1GCr6iYXCMg/Uml5HJ5i6tI/AAAAAAAAKJk/v9dq3tQEg40/w767-h459-no/hadsst3+27+bp+with+62+lag.png
The ~62 year recurrence looks like a combination of SH and NH ocean dampening time constants. ~45 years in the SH and ~15.75 years in the NH. There are not likely fixed though.
@VP: That’s not a brick filte.
@bi2hs: Thank you. It’s not a sinc filter, it is a triple running mean. See Greg Goodman’s blog Data corruption by running mean filters. Sorry about that.
Looks like Goodman is getting away with stealing other people’s ideas without acknowledgment. See my December 2012 post on Climate Etc. where Goodman first learned this approach, specifically from the two paragraphs following the third figure here.
What was Goodman’s reaction to my post? It was insane! 50 replies at least half of which were laced with vitriol accusing me of lying , ignoring criticism, generally being condescending and pig-headed, etc. etc. etc.
One might guess from all that vitriol that it would kill Goodman to have to admit that he learned the method from someone he considered a liar etc. etc. His May 2013 blog post is clear evidence of this. He describes the method as though he came up with it himself.
It seems to me that this blog attracts the occasional person suffering from one or another kind of personality disorder. The clear symptom is scurrilous accusations of the kind permeating Goodman’s many comments, which do nothing whatsoever to lead to any sort of a meeting of the minds. That he also steals simply goes with that particular territory.
I would have said this back in January had I not felt back then that one should think this sort of thing through carefully. Looking back on those exchanges in December and January, I’m amazed I did not speak up sooner!
Vaughan
I need the Ying and Yang. The belligerent folks are what gets me ruffled enough to show them off, while the clever ones get me inspired.
Also, I watch carefully what they are trying to hide. It sounds nuts but the more some of these dudes try to hide something, the more likely that the hidden element is the key. Regarding the stadium waves, the way they hide the factors is by integrating the time series to generate a trend. Goodman’s favorite is to use derivatives to generate correlations.
Quite right. They hide the rise by repeating the mantra “hide the decline” ad nauseam.
This is worth repeating here in the face of the two more examples of the most broad reaching delusion in human history.
Count it up sunnyboys. This graph was posted at realclimate along with the usual post hoc rationalisations.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/rc_fig1_zpsf24786ae.jpg.html?sort=3&o=26
2/3 of the recent warming occurred in 1976/1977 and 1997/1998. Excluding this for the very good reason that in was all ENSO rather than AGW leaves a residual of some 0.1 degrees C/decade. They are also excluded for the very good reason that ENSO fluctuations at these times of climate shifts are ENSO dragon-kings. Certainly outside the norm.
Webby is saying that the IPO – we will refer to the pan Pacific decadal variability – contributes 0.1 degrees C to recent warming. It is actually more than that – but let’s see what this means. It leaves less than 0.05 degrees C/decade for greenhouse gases. Not enough to make any difference over any reasonable time frame.
This is the simplest of calculations – that it is not recognised is madness of the crowd in this modern and broadly pervasive manifestation of an age old human psychopathology.
Hide the rise? It is not large enough to be worth hiding. Exaggerate the rise and predict the direst of consequences seems more the point. That this is accompanied in webby’s case by prattling, preening and incompetence outside the ambit of any rational science at all – along with the obligatory smarmy sneers – seems par for the course for space cadets more generally.
That the planet is not warming for a decade to three hence is a little more complex – and seemingly well above webby’s pay grade.
@CH: That the planet is not warming for a decade to three hence is a little more complex – and seemingly well above webby’s pay grade.
I’m in no hurry, CH. How about we revisit this at the end of 2015? If there hasn’t been a 2 °C/century rise over the previous half decade then I’ll gladly concede that the hiatus is continuing.
In the spirit of ad nauseum
Chief said:
I said nothing of the sort. It actually adds nothing to the long-term warming. How can it add anything else but zilch?
‘The LOD is still a good heuristic because it creates a long-term fluctuation which matches a stadium wave modulation in the warming signal of maximally +/- 0.1 C in the global temperature time series.
You have actually repeated this a number of times.
‘Chief said:
“Webby is saying that the IPO – we will refer to the pan Pacific decadal variability – contributes 0.1 degrees C to recent warming. “
I said nothing of the sort. It actually adds nothing to the long-term warming. How can it add anything else but zilch?’
It added to recent warming knucklehead – as did ENSO in 1976/1977 and 1997/1998.
Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO and El Niño-La Niña are superimposed on global warming caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and landscape changes like deforestation. According to Josh Willis, JPL oceanographer and climate scientist, “These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.” http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703
Finally, the presence of vigorous climate variability presents significant challenges to near-term climate prediction (25, 26), leaving open the possibility of steady or even declining global mean surface temperatures over the next several decades that
could present a significant empirical obstacle to the implementation of policies directed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (27). However, global warming could likewise suddenly and without any ostensive cause accelerate due to internal variability.
To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, the climate system appears wild, and may continue to hold many surprises if pressed. http://deepeco.ucsd.edu/~george/publications/09_long-term_variability.pdf
There is no fair comparison Vaughan old buddy – you lack knowledge of ocean regimes or a theory of climate shifts. Merely have a pious hope.
I have been warning space cadets about this for years – only to be met by by cognitive dissonance, entrenched ignorance, sneers and abuse. Utterly pathetic.
Wow, Chief actually believes that a 60 Hz AC power source will add a DC bias of 120 V or 240 V to a signal.
That is the level of ignorance, or more likely, pure denial, that we are talking about.
They don’t get that a fluctuation is just as it is defined, a value that goes up as much as it goes down.
A boat bobbing in the wavy waters is considered to be fluctuating in height.
The wind sporadically changing speed during the day is fluctuating about the mean.
The temperature changing with the seasons or from day to night is considered fluctuating in value.
Yet no one except Chief believes that this fluctuation has any real bearing on the long-term trend.
Is this really ignorance, or simply denial for the purposes of furthering an agenda?
Webster, “Wow, Chief actually believes that a 60 Hz AC power source will add a DC bias of 120 V or 240 V to a signal. ”
Ever heard of a voltage doubler? This is the reason I have mentioned that when you assume all layers of the atmosphere and oceans have a fast time constant you miss the possibility that there is some trickle charging happening in the system. The “GREENHOUSE FLUID” effect that I believe has been mentioned from time to time.
If you consider each layer of the system individually, you will find that different layers receive differing energy inputs and have differing discharge rates. This creates an energy offset which is the dQ in the equilibrium climate sensitivity equation. As dQ decreases, sensitivity in one layer decreases while another increases. That means that you get things like the 1918 NH volcanic response that takes 62 years to settle out globally creating Vpratt’s SAW.
BTW if you do a simple quadratic fit it leads to about 1.5K/2xCO2
Pretty much Nic Lewis’ central figure IIRC.
But again that all starts from the assumption that nothing else can affect climate and it’s all net-zero symmetrical processes and gaussian distributed noise.
No, it does not.
yes, it does
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=523
Oh no a person who thinks he is a rabbit and speaks in third person.
Hare brained.
Lewis should have found TCR of 2C if he did it right.
The subtleties in the fit are what gives it credence.
The noise is on several different time scales and it fits with just a few parameters.
The TSI matches what the theory says for dT, no lag.
The volcanic input is similar to what others have done with a 2 to 3 year lag.
The SOI is scaled to fit the subdecadal fluctuations across all the years with a nominal 6 month lag to model the global propagation.
The LOI is the only real wild card which colors in the multidecadal variation.
I also placed in one manmade aerosol source on October 1943 to indicate the start of the massive bombing campaign during WWII. It fills in one short gap.
The rest is CO2 trend
“Lewis should have found TCR of 2C if he did it right.”
So far I don’t see you demonstrating the same level of competence as Lewis.
Simple assertions that he did not “do it right” carry no weight whatsoever.
“The noise is on several different time scales and it fits with just a few parameters.”
You use four time series each with two params , you still are left with resids going beyond +/-0.3 on “CO2” rise of 0.7 per century, significant change left around 1900, 1940 and ’98 El Nino.
And after all that , there’s still a noticeable decline in the resid after 1998, showing you still have a “pause” to deal with after subtracting anything you can find.
I still like the way SOI reduced the variability. It would be good if you provided a mathematical description of how to reproduce it. Sounds like you just fiddled by eye with some rather vague criteria at the back of your mind.
The data have more unresolved errors and constant gerry-rigging than what you are trying to resolve with all the fitting. You should probably be satisfied with SOI.
The green curve is the temperature and the blue curve is the CSALT model
http://imageshack.us/a/img849/337/ozl.gif
It really does model the pause nicely.
There is no “jerry-rigging”. It is a multiple regression fit that uses all the data back to 1880. That is all there is to it.
I recall when skeptics complained when Tamino only used the data back to 1979 or 1980.
There is no “jerry-rigging”.
That comment was referring to constant manipulation of the source data, not your working of it.
Ian Wilson | October 17, 2013 at 6:44 am
Greg,
Your joking of course? Do you realize that you should be looking for spectral signals that are the beat periods of following periods:
anomalistic month = 27.554549878 days
sidereal month = 27.321661547 days
draconic month = 27.212220817 days
synodic month = 29.530588853 days
So it is not surprising that you do not see
the 18.6000 year and 8.8504 year signals.
=========
Like I said, if that’s what you’re looking for you need EOP not Comb2003, which very deliberately removes all these tides. check the doc.
Having a closer look absolute value of d/dt(LOD)
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=564
The beat patterns vary between about 4 and 5 years but over that dataset they average to 4.36 years. This is interesting because I have often found values close to this in a several climate spectra and assumed it was probably 4.43 to within the accuracy of data and the analysis. If fact it looks like it is quite close to the current average of the way all these tidal frequencies sum up.
From what I found in NOAA ice extent data:
As A.M. sidebands: 1567.2960 27.5987 -1598.8977
Modulation beats: 27.6035 * 1582.9391
1583/365.25=4.33 years
That is very close to the 4.36 seen in LOD.
I find 4.32 years directly in the low frequency analysis of ice extent.
[there is a scaling error of 1.0015 that I have not been able to pin down.If I adjust for that I get within 174ppm of the lunar anomalistic period.]
That leaves me pretty impressed with the way they’ve extracted ice extent from the raw microwave data.
The up-shot is , we probably should be paying more attention to variability in LOD as well as just looking at it’s decadal drift in average value.
Greg, “The up-shot is , we probably should be paying more attention to variability in LOD as well as just looking at it’s decadal drift in average value.”
As long as you don’t confuse cause and effect. dLOD should be a result of combine external/internal forcing and damped internal response. It would give you a weak signal of everything that has any influence. So it would be a great “weather” index, but since climate resets for various reasons, with volcanic activity a big one, not much for longer term. So you likely have a 22 year +/- say 8 year useful life of dLOD barring random(?) resets.
There were volcanic resets ~1817 and1917 that could be timed with lower solar or have caused the lower solar measured value by obscuring SSN count. Earth climate variations don’t cause solar modulation but they can surely cause problems with the way we measure solar modulation.
The stadium wave is climate as it evolves through oscillatory network nodes. The indices themselves are not climate – the indices are oscillatory nodes that show modes of variability of the underlying, integral, networked system. That is – it is a single and dynamically evolving global spanning system. The stadium wave idea – an important idea in climate – defines a new way of understanding the interactions of physical sub-components in the evolution of a climate signal as it propagates through the network nodes over characteristic times.
It is an idea that has the characteristic of being entirely obvious – once expressed.
Marcia certainly assembled the A team of American climate dynamicists in her thesis committee. That’s pretty impressive by itself. I expect that there will be Nobel Prizes in due course.
Thanks Marcia and Judith – for the great study, fantastic post and terrific comments.
Just as an aside Marcia – your lively, lucid and fluid use of language is very rare and a delight. Well done.
+1
I concur. Even though the technical details are way over my head, I get the drift and it seems reasonable to me.
Catch the wave, endless climate.
============
@CH: I expect that there will be Nobel Prizes in due course.
Quite on the cards since it covers at least four of the six possible areas:
Peace: for calming down the climate debate.
Literature: for “lively, lucid and fluid use of language” that “is very rare and a delight.”
Physics: for “a new way of understanding the interactions of physical sub-components in the evolution of a climate signal as it propagates through the network nodes over characteristic times.”
Economics: For saving the economy many trillions of dollars.
Chemistry and medicine: less clear but not out of the question.
‘We construct a network of observed climate indices in
the period 1900–2000 and investigate their collective
behavior. The results indicate that this network
synchronized several times in this period. We find that in
those cases where the synchronous state was followed by a steady increase in the coupling strength between the indices, the synchronous state was destroyed, after which a new climate state emerged. These shifts are associated with significant changes in global temperature trend and in ENSO variability. The latest such event is known as the great climate shift of the 1970s. We also find the evidence for such type of behavior in two climate simulations using a state-of-the-art model. This is the first time that this mechanism, which appears consistent with the theory of
synchronized chaos, is discovered in a physical system of the size and complexity of the climate system.’
Tsonis, A. A., K. Swanson, and S. Kravtsov (2007), A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34
The stadium wave is a related phenomenon. The essential synchronous idea is paradigm shifting – to an idea that was suspected but was shown numerically in the 2007 Tsonis et al paper. Prizes seem in order – once the new paradigm dominates. It may require first the expiration of one bony old physicist at a time Vaughan old buddy.
Chemistry, once the UV, Ozone, Cosmic Ray interactions with the atmosphere, oceans, and biosphere are worked out.
Medicine for exemplary therapy for an ‘Extraordinary Popular Delusion and Madness of the Crowd’.
=================
This is the configuration that shows the most parsimonious agreement:
http://imageshack.us/a/img268/1825/nw3r.gif
The LOD modulation is critical in generating the inflection points in the curve. The change in kinetic energy due to LOD modulation is huge and that energy has to go somewhere. Using moment of inertia of the earth and the rotational velocity of the Earth, the number is less than the OHC change over the same time duration but is still significant.
@WHT: Using moment of inertia of the earth and the rotational velocity of the Earth, the number is less than the OHC change over the same time duration but is still significant.
Sure, if you consider 0.01% significant. If you think it’s more show us your math.
Vaughan Pratt, “Sure, if you consider 0.01% significant. If you think it’s more show us your math.”
I reckon he promoted that 0.1% TSI variation by accident now didn’t he :)
Thanks Vaughan.
This is what I was able to infer from the physics of LOD.
Earth’s moment of inertia is I = 8e37 kg-m^2.
The kinetic energy in the earth’s rotation is:
KE = 1/2 * I * w^2, where w is rotational frequency.
KE = 1/2*I*(2*pi/T)^2 where T is the 24-hour period
Taking the differential
dKE = -(2*pi)^2 * I *(1/T)^3 dT
In seconds, T = 60*60*24 = 86,400 in a day
dKE = 5e24 dT in Joules
The LOD has been known to change by 4 msecs over a span of years [1], which is
dKE = 5e24*0.004 = 2e22 Joules
Over a similar span, the OHC has been known to increase by about 10x this amount.
That energy has to be dissipated somewhere and it could be a candidate for frictional warming, etc. See more in Dickey’s work
[1]J. O. Dickey, S. L. Marcus, and O. de Viron, “Air Temperature and Anthropogenic Forcing: Insights from the Solid Earth,” Journal of Climate, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 569–574, 2011.
WHT,
LOD is defined by the rate of rotation of the Earth crust. It can change in three principal ways
1) By the slowdown related to tides. As the moon is the main external body behind the tides angular momentum is transferred mainly to the moon. In that some kinetic energy is also transferred to the moon but most is lost by dissipation related to the tides. This effect leads always to a slowdown of the rotation and adds to the length of day perhaps 0.02 ms/year. Based on that the change of 4 ms would take about 200 years.
2) The motion of the crust relative to other parts of the Earth varies. The other parts include the core, oceans and the atmosphere.
3) The moment of inertia of the Earth changes through deformation of the crust.
All the relatively rapid changes are related to the effects 2) and 3). They explain the recent trend of shortening LOD in spite of the dominance of 1) over very long periods.
Conservation of both energy and angular momentum requires that dissipation is involved in some way in all variability, but how it happens and what are the related amounts of energy varies greatly. Your calculation does not apply to any realistic case. Your approach is correct only for the case 1) which is very much weaker that what you indicate.
Very nice, Pekka; we can get the Vulcans involved, yet.
===========
Pekka, You evidently have not seen the correlation between SOI and atmospheric angular momentum [1] ?
http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/2295/1u4.gif
Data from this site
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/climateindices/list/
I use the SOI and not this measure because GLAAM does not go back to 1880, whereas SOI does. The LOD data also goes back to 1880, so I am combining these to try to model the temperature accurately. I have to say that it is working pretty good.
[1]J. O. Dickey, S. L. Marcus, and O. de Viron, “Air Temperature and Anthropogenic Forcing: Insights from the Solid Earth,” Journal of Climate, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 569–574, 2011.
WWT,
Of course I have seen the correlation.
That tells only that angular momentum is transferred back and forth between the atmosphere and the Earth crust. Their sum must be conserved in this exchange, therefore a very high correlation is unavoidable over periods too short for the LOD to be influenced as strongly by other mechanisms.
The above mentioned exchange is part of my point 2). Similar exchange occurs also with the oceans and with the core, but the exchange with the atmosphere dominates over short periods.
@WHT: The LOD has been known to change by 4 msecs over a span of years [1], which is dKE = 5e24*0.004 = 2e22 Joules
That’s clearly too high. The total rotational energy of the Earth is only 2e29 J. If Earth dissipated that much energy every 30 years it would grind to a complete halt within 300 million years. The Earth has been spinning for 15 times that long and is unlikely to be slowing that quickly.
You’ve assumed that the whole Earth has slowed down that much. For that to happen it would need to shed some angular momentum. It could do that by transferring it to the Moon. However 30 years later Earth speeds up again, making it more likely that it transferred that angular momentum into the mantle and core and recovered it later.
Since angular momentum is linear in angular velocity while rotational energy is quadratic, such an exchange will indeed involve converting an excess of KE to some other form, though considerably less than 2e22 J. Redo your math and you’ll see just how much less.
Furthermore some of it may be dissipated in plastic flow of the mantle, but some may be stored temporarily as potential energy in elastic strain of the mantle and recovered on the rebound. If the latter turns out to account for say 80% of the energy then you have to divide whatever you got in the previous paragraph by 5.
Oops, I should have refreshed my browser before typing that. I only just now saw Pekka’s responses. Common to our responses is the point that WHT has not paid attention to where the angular momentum went. Since the 4 ms slowdown over 30 years was followed by a similar but slightly reduced speedup over the next 30 years, it is clear that a lot of the energy difference needed to conserve angular momentum had to have been stored elastically in the mantle rather than being dissipated to viscous heating of the mantle.
Pekka’s point 3) (moment of inertia changes) is an excellent one. If decreasing global temperature increases ice cover, that will tend to increase the moment of inertia, accounting for some of the slowdown in rotation. Some of the surplus KE will go into the PE of the higher-altitude H2O. As the planet warms back up, decreasing ice cover would result in rotation speeding back up. Some math needed here to see how much ice raised to what height would be needed to explain 100% of the slowdown. Since ice tends to congregate near the poles, close to the axis of rotation, the effect would not be as strong as additional ice on the Himalayas, well away from the axis.
Thanks for helping out on this.
I am taking most of the information from the Dickey paper [1], where they show pseudo-oscillating decadal fluctuations of the order of 4 milliseconds over a few decades.
http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/5771/7bma.gif
So nothing grinds to a halt as the negative dT is balanced by a positive dT later on. They say these are transient shifts in the atmosphere mostly and some in the ocean.
(is it possible that mantle seismic shifts are so instantaneous that they can filter these out via processing?)
Dickey estimate a sensitivity of -0.6 to -0.7 C/millisec and that’s close to what I get in the multi-regression fit.
[1]J. O. Dickey, S. L. Marcus, and O. de Viron, “Air Temperature and Anthropogenic Forcing: Insights from the Solid Earth,” Journal of Climate, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 569–574, 2011.
Meanwhile I see I got the ice thing backwards. A cold snap will take the top meter or so of the whole ocean and deposit it in cold places. If most of those places are closer to the axis of rotation than where the water came from then I (the moment of inertia) will decrease and the planet will speed up.
Needs more thought, calculation, theorizing, etc. etc.
I’ve now convinced myself that the 4 ms can’t be due to ice. If you took the top meter of the ocean and wrapped it around the equator you’d gain almost exactly the extra 4 ms per day (slower rotation) that we’re looking for. If you took much less, or if you put it anywhere else, Earth would not slow down as much. If you concentrated it all at 35 degrees (= acos(sqrt(2/3))) from the equator (whether 1 cm or 10 m of the top of the ocean) there’d be no change. Anywhere further polewards and Earth would rotate faster.
However the figure here shows only a very slow and steady rise in sea level since 1880, nowhere near enough of a difference to change the moment of inertia enough to account for the 4 ms in terms of relocation of H2O.
So we’re back to exchanging angular momentum between the lithosphere (crust + solid mantle) and the core, mediated somehow by the asthenosphere, the same picture as in Dickey et al 2011 and its many predecessors: “Previous investigators have found that the LOD fluctuations are largely attributed to core-mantle interactions.” (From the abstract.)
Further down, “The cause of this common variability needs to be further investigated and studied.” Translation: “The mechanism is up for grabs.”
Which brings us to the topic of this thread, the stadium wave hypothesis. What I haven’t yet understood from the paper is whether it offers such a mechanism. If it’s merely using the LOD fluctuations as a proxy for something else, which the abstract seems to suggest, then presumably the mechanism is as much up for grabs as before.
We can consider similarly the role of atmospheric angular momentum (AAM). The moment of inertia of the atmosphere is 0.00000014 (1 / 7 million) times the moment of inertia of the Earth. Thus stopping totally the atmosphere or making it rotate twice as fast would change LOD by 12 ms.
All changes in AAM must be much smaller than that as the highest linear velocity that can drive the atmospheric motion is the speed of surface at equator. The atmosphere gains angular momentum from the equatorial surface, transfers it to higher latitudes by general circulation, and delivers angular momentum back to the surface at higher latitudes. The sustainable deviation from the rotation at the angular velocity of the Earth cannot be a large fraction of that as it’s a net value calculated from opposite effects caused by Easterlies and Westerlies with a contribution from the eddies.
The amplitude of the seasonal variability in LOD is roughly 1 ms. Almost as strong effects have been observed persist for 1-2 years (Holme and de Viron, Figure 2). It seems unlikely to me that even that much could persist for much longer.
Here is something else to consider.
Recall that event in the SLR from 2011 whereby the sea-level dipped by a certain amount and then recovered.
The thinking is that this was all water that was temporarily transferred from the ocean to land basin areas such as the Australia (mainly) and parts of the Americas.
https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/10090/global-sea-level-rise-dampened-australia-floods
This was a change of 6 mm in the span of a year according to this figure
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2013_rel7/sl_ns_global.png
The water was temporarily transferred to higher elevations which is a higher moment of inertia. This should show up in LOD measurements I would guess.
LOD changes are 0.001 second out of 86,400 seconds in a year or 1 part in 1e8.
The radius of the earth is 6,371,000 m and so a 0.006 meter displacement on the inertial lever arm is 1 part out of 1e9.
Vaughan said:
Is it possible that evapotranspiration could move large amounts of mass quickly?
These are all energy transformations that feed into the temperature fluctuations that we observe. That is why a variational free energy formulation is so critical.
WHT,
My impression is that you err by an order of magnitude in your considerations.
Fitting time series is one thing, looking for real physical mechanisms is another. An agreement at the level of some statistical significance in the fit is a good hint that there may be something real that causes that agreement, but as long as the physical calculations are off by an order of magnitude we certainly are missing a real explanation.
Vaughan Pratt told how much water must be moved to make an effect in LOD, I told how much the winds must change, your enthalpy calculations are not well defined. The physics that you have proposed does not seem to add up.
Pekka, I didn’t propose that physics, Dickey and others did. They are still trying to find why the angular rotation aligns with measures like SOI and the multidecadal global warming signal.
What is still the same order of magnitude is the changes in heat content over decades and the changes in rotational kinetic energy over the same time period.
E= (2*pi)^2 / T^3*L*d
where T = earth’s rotation period
L = moment of inertia
d=LOD correction
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%282*PI%29^2+*+%28L*d%2FT^3%29+where+L%3D8e37%2C+T%3D86400%2C+d%3D0.001
The number is 5e21 joules which is energy on the order of the heat absorbed by the earth over a year
That’s wrong. Your calculation is based on the assumption that you can calculate the change in rotational energy from the change in LOD. That would be true if the Earth were a solid body of constant moment of inertia. In reality the moment of inertia is not constant, and the Earth is not a solid body. The core does not rotate exactly as the crust rotates.
Pekka said:
So Dickey [1] is suggesting that changes deep within the core are propagating outward and coupled by magnetic effects to indirectly influence things like the global warming trend and SOI fluctuations? See this figure:
http://imageshack.us/a/img845/8603/ad5b.gif
[1]J. O. Dickey, S. L. Marcus, and O. de Viron, “Air Temperature and Anthropogenic Forcing: Insights from the Solid Earth,” Journal of Climate, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 569–574, 2011.
WHT,
Dickey et al confirm what I wrote:
The wrong physics is your wrong physics, not their.
In that part of their paper that you quote in your later comment the authors turn top speculation. They propose mechanisms that are not related to the atmospheric angular momentum but to the core-mantle interaction and geomagnetic fields.
I don’t take those comment as anything more than pure speculation.
Pekka said:
No they clearly state that there is some sort of atmospheric connection. I am just demonstrating that there is enough coupled energy in the system by the changes in LOD to be able to affect changes. This is to first-order obviously.
Dickey said:
I am a believer in conservation of energy you know. I did work through the atmospheric concentration computations and agree with you and Dickey and Pratt that it can’t be as simple as that, but that leaves open other possibilities as Dickey said above.
This is the tricky part to understand:
Dickey said:
How could they say that the ocean has a “substantially smaller” effect on LOD than the atmosphere has on the LOD, unless they know what the actual contribution of the atmosphere is on LOD?
Then they say that the “the atmosphere and ocean account for only 14% of the observed decadal LOD changes during 1949–2002 “, which seems at least somewhat important a finding. Or is it the fact that since it is only 14% that they must dismiss it completely?
These are all their words, not mine. I am simply trying to interpret their innuendo and ambiguous assertions. Welcome to the world of enigmatic and inscrutable research papers.
Those again are their assertions, not mine.
WHT,
The variability in the rate of rotation of the Earth cannot be due to alternating dissipation and some cancelling process. That would require violation of the Second law to be strong enough. The variability is possible only when the dissipation does not occur at a comparable level. Most of it must be due either to variability in the moment of inertia, i.e., variability in the shape of the Earth, or to changes in the rate of rotation of the crust relative to the core.
The first alternative is known to be an important factor, how much the second can contribute is questionable because the momentum of inertia of the core is perhaps not large enough relative to that of the mantle, and the mantle is probably too stiff to rotate at a rate different from that of the crust.
WHT,
The winds are known well enough for the calculation of atmospheric angular momentum with a satisfactory accuracy. Thus also the variability of AAM is known. Similarly it’s possible to estimate the angular momentum of the ocean currents well enough for determining that they are a minor factor.
The same authors have written also the paper Closure in the Earth’s angular momentum budget observed from subseasonal periods down to four days: No core effects needed whose title tells that AAM and OAM dominate on subseasonal periods. That again tells that AAM and OAM can be calculated from observations.
What happens on longer periods is largely unrelated and affected strongly by the changing shape of the Earth due to tectonic movements, rebounding of the mantle and crust and occasional earthquakes.
OK, in summary from this other Dickey paper, they say that the subdecadal LOD, which is perhaps best described as a differential LOD, is attributable to atmospheric effects but that the long term multidecadal LOD changes can’t be pinned to atmosphere in any definitive way — but a conjecture is there.
Another conjecture by Dickey is that something else is operating on them simultaneously:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20110309.html
Based on the Figures of these papers variability in the AAM domintaes under normal conditions at periods up to one year and may be important for 2-3 years, but beyond that it’s a minor factor.
Yes, the subdecadal variations are small enough to be plausibly attributable to various things.
What I find utterly mysterious is the 4 ms slowdown prior to 1910 followed by almost as large a speedup. I can only think of two possibilities consistent with such a large variation in both angular momentum of the whole planet and its rotational energy.
1. Potential energy stored as elastic strain in the asthenosphere that is later converted back to kinetic energy. (Picture a lithosphere wobbling back and forth with the asthenosphere acting as a spring.)
2. Variation in friction between the inner core (which very recent measurements show to be rotating faster than the lithosphere so as to lap it about once a millennium) and either the outer core or the mantle. When the friction decreases, the tidal drag of the Moon and Sun slow the lithosphere down (they drag it westwards relative to the inner core), and when it increases again the inner core pulls the lithosphere forwards (eastwards) again.
I’m dubious about 2 because the requisite friction variation may be too great to be consistent with the overall slowdown of Earth’s rotation over the past 600 My. I’ll do the math for that next time I’m feeling in the mood.
Meanwhile 1 strikes me as more plausible, but again some math is needed to check its feasibility.
‘Occam’s razor (also written as Ockham’s razor from William of Ockham (c. 1287 – 1347), and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in logic and problem-solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected.
The application of the principle often shifts the burden of proof in a discussion.[a] The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. The simplest available theory need not be most accurate.’ Wikepedia
Despite complexity, chaos and stadium waves – change in the energy content of the planet is almost completely determined by the energy flux changes at top of atmosphere. Ignoring radioactive decay in the mantle.
d(W&H)/dt = power in – power out
Where W&H is work and heat.
Power in changes little in the visible band but seems to be of immense significance otherwise. Some people look to cosmic rays – I prefer the UV/ozone top down climate modulation theory. Changing warmth in the stratosphere – changes the distribution of atmospheric mass in the troposphere. Shifting jet streams – shifting patterns of winds, currents, clouds, ice, snow, dust and biology across the planet. In the context of a coupled, nonlinear system – the system is sensitive to small changes in power in.
The PDO and ENSO have the same decadal signature. A warm PDO occurs at the same time as periods of more frequent and intense El Nino – showing without doubt that the decadal variations have the same origin. The most interesting and novel aspect of the Terwilliger climate theory is in linking top down modulation to the PDO and ENSO through temperature of water in the Californian and Peruvian currents respectively. A cooler surface facilitates upwelling of cool and nutrient rich abyssal water and vice versa. More or less upwelling off the North American coast persists for decades. Off the Peruvian coast the ENSO oscillation persists but with millennial, centennial and millennial variations in the intensity and frequency of upwelling.
Power out changes considerably.
In IR – huge changes from year to year, a cooling trend (from reduced cloud) of 0.7 W/m^2 between the mid 1980’s and the end of the 1990’s, a shift at the end of the century. Note the influence of ENSO on IR flux.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Loeb2011-Fig1.png.html?sort=3&o=70
In SW – seen here as a cloud cover – a warming trend from reducing cloud between the mid 1980’s and 1990’s equivalent to about 2 W/m^2 change, a step change in the late 1990’s in the 1998/2001 climate shift and a plateauing since.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandlaken2013_zps3c92a9fc.png.html?sort=3&o=32
It appears parsimonious to the level of stingyness to completely ignore the data – without even the semblance of equivocating. In the Enric Palle and Ben Laken cloud graph linked to tropical SST is used to cross calibrate ISCCP-FD and MODIS data. It brings us full circle to UV, ozone and the Pacific SST dynamic. Proxies show that El Nino has been more intense and frequent since 1920 than at almost any time in the past 1000 years. More salt in the Law Dome core is La Nina and more rain in Australia.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Vance2012-AntarticaLawDomeicecoresaltcontent.jpg.html?sort=3&o=87
The decadal changes in TOA flux associated with ENSO and the PDO suggest that the longer term patterns associated with changing SST over centuries to millennia are associated with significant but unknowable changes in cloud radiative forcing. Shorter term it takes considerable chutzpah to insist that you can explain climate without cloud.
Chief:
Almost the same as my New Climate Model.
You just need to add that more zonal jets when the sun is active widen the subtropical high pressure cells and allow more energy into the oceans to skew Enso in favour of El Nino over and above the basic 60 year periodicity so as to get the observed millennial climate cycling.and the temperature stepping from one PDO positive or negative phase to the next.
Upward stepping from LIA to date and downward stepping from MWP to LIA but with a lot of variability along the way as solar activity ebbed and flowed.
Good to have you back Chief. I agree that the Stadium Wave hypothesis is a ground breaking work and yes, the language is fresh and unambiguous. Once we can isolate natural variability, ther’s aheaps of hypotheses available for falsification.
“This is the configuration that shows the most parsimonious agreement:”
Your account of how you fit SOI is also “parsimonious”.
That presumably makes it better than explaining what you’ve done so others can reproduce it.
The general approach is so simple. All I did was infer what Tamino and others have done.
This post at SkS generated lots of interest:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pacific-ocean-global-warming-puzzle-Kosaka-Xie.html
This is KevinC’s fit:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/two_box_enso.png
And he has his own online version here:
http://diyclimate.x10.mx/responsemodel/nbox.html
This is the version by Icarus:
http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/0/7/6/2/8/5/2bmvsgissrsquared-117883512421.png
The cat’s out of the bag. They all model the pause. Hard to deny this work by independent parties.
Webster, Parsimonious this.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-UFKlsCSB6eE/UmKV2o_gWaI/AAAAAAAAKCA/kOz85lP0oFo/w575-h338-no/SOI+and+Volcanic+impact.png
SOI and Volcanic imbalances are interrelated and impact dLOD. How is SOI going to “zero out” when it has a random input like volcanoes?
Thanks for the links. Oddly you still seem totally incapable of explaining what YOU did to produce your own model.
KevinC’s model looks quite a good match too but more blaick box mystery work. His interactive pages lets us fiddle with parameters but does not tell us what the underlying maths is.
One think I do note from the output is a volcanic response that runs on for decades. This totally unrealistic is just the excuse for pumping the AGW factor. This has been the IPCC’s game since the outset.
I notice everyone seems to have preference for Hansen’s frequently warmed and adjusted GISS time series in this game. coincidence? I doubt it but I’d better be careful or else i’ll be outed as harbouring conspriationalistism ideationallisms.
“They all model the pause. Hard to deny this work by independent parties.”
Right, dana1851 is about a detached and independent a researcher as one could wish to find. A giant among men.
Since you admit to copying what they did, but don’t seen to know how you did it, you hardly count as independent either.
It is indeed hard to “deny” work when no one seems inclined to commit themselves in writing as to what they are doing so that it can be reproduced, checked and verified.
Yes, I know no one bothers with quaint little details like model verification before wanting to change future of the planel. Just call me old-fashioned it you will but I “deny” stuff until I see how it’s done have a chance to check it.
Lots of pretty picks. No facts and equations so far
Webster, here is another little gut check you can do at home.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-4nyDMSL8lNs/UmKyzGD-T6I/AAAAAAAAKCY/XdctYkjl8iw/w868-h496-no/ERSST+three+zones.png
Amazing how a 1980 to 2012 baseline shows the 1940s reset.
Greg, I tried to explain to WHT the issues with what he had done previously and I’m afraid he got rather huffy about it (I’m including a rehash of a previous comment):
Firstly he is fitting to independent variables that have error, and this introduces bias. See this for discussion, but the proof is rather trivial, if you can grok the math.
Secondly, one of the thing I keep saying when people engage in mathematical calisthenics: “Central values without error bars are not measurements”:
You have to look at the uncertainty in the trend, not just the central value. It’s not surprising that F&R (or any other smoothing algorithm) is going to reduce variance by subtracting some portion of it off.
Third, the question is by how much the trend that remains is affected by the smoothing algorithm. Reduced variance does not imply reduced absolute uncertainty.
Three related posts to look at are:
Another “reconstruction” of underlying temperatures from 1979-2012 by Troy Masters. Key quote:
16 ^more years of global warming by KevinC. Key quote:
Estimating the Underlying Trend in Recent Warming by SteveF. His conclusions:
I’ll note in passing that the earliest mention I know for this method was suggested by Lucia, I believe circa 2008, on her blog.
It is not a universal result that the trend remains large at end point. In fact what happens is the trend near the end point gets affected by the fitting algorithm (hence 15 years of slow warming gets ramped up in WHTs analysis). Hence KevinC’s cautionary point.
I believe that the uncertainty in the trend actually grows (you get “error amplification” near the end points associated with the OLS fit) as you approach the end point, and I’ve been warning pretty much everybody who felt like participating in this curve fitting exercise.
Got hung up in moderation (too many links), so I’m splitting this in two.
Part one:
Greg, I tried to explain to WHT the issues with what he had done previously and I’m afraid he got rather huffy about it (I’m including a rehash of a previous comment):
Firstly he is fitting to independent variables that have error, and this introduces bias. See this for discussion, but the proof is rather trivial, if you can grok the math.
Secondly, one of the thing I keep saying when people engage in mathematical calisthenics: “Central values without error bars are not measurements”:
You have to look at the uncertainty in the trend, not just the central value. It’s not surprising that F&R (or any other smoothing algorithm) is going to reduce variance by subtracting some portion of it off.
Third, the question is by how much the trend that remains is affected by the smoothing algorithm. Reduced variance does not imply reduced absolute uncertainty.
Part two:
Three related posts to look at are:
Another “reconstruction” of underlying temperatures from 1979-2012 by Troy Masters. Key quote:
16 ^more years of global warming by KevinC. Key quote:
Estimating the Underlying Trend in Recent Warming by SteveF. His conclusions:
I’ll note in passing that the earliest mention I know for this method was suggested by Lucia, I believe circa 2008, on her blog.
It is not a universal result that the trend remains large at end point. In fact what happens is the trend near the end point gets affected by the fitting algorithm (hence 15 years of slow warming gets ramped up in WHTs analysis). Hence KevinC’s cautionary point.
I believe that the uncertainty in the trend actually grows (you get “error amplification” near the end points associated with the OLS fit) as you approach the end point, and I’ve been warning pretty much everybody who felt like participating in this curve fitting exercise.
I have it written up here.
http://contextearth.com/2013/10/04/climate-variability-and-inferring-global-warming/
I only have it run out for a 3-year 1/e response. I didn’t use their algorithm, just a simple damped exponential lagged response on delta volcanic disturbances.
I include a bunch of data sets. Here is one comparing GISS and HadCrut
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/849/ozl.gif/
HadCrut does give a smaller TCR, but otherwise works well.
I don’t think Dana Nucitelli is actually doing the detailed modeling work.
Is that all you have? You want to be just another “auditor” instead of doing the creative fun and easy work of a linear multiple regression model with a few lagged convolutions on the input data sets?
Hardly. This is independent verification on my part. I came from the experimental scientific research world where if someone published a finding that said a certain combination of materials would give a good result, you would run with it and do it on your own. You don’t need the exact recipe because that would possibly prevent you from making it better.
In any case, I will show what I have in good time.
How can the last 15 years be ” affected by the fitting algorithm “ when I used ALL the data since 1880 to generate the linear coefficients in the CSALT model?
In the most raw form I don’t use any windowing functions and use monthly data since 1880 if that resolution is available, so truncation effects are negligible. I do supply a 12-month widowing option on the front end so you can play with that.
One piece of information I am missing is the LOD in the last 4 years, and I did a dead reckoning estimate to continue that trend.
—–
I think you may be confusing what I am doing with the ARIMA and Markov time-series regression work that seems to be popular at Lucia’s.
This is a fit of components in a multiple linear regression model. What this means is that 20 years from now, if we know what the CO2, SOI, Aerosol estimate, LOD, and TSI measures are, then we should be able to estimate the temperature anomaly.
WHT:
At least two mechanisms:
• The frequency cutoff in your basis functions.
• Amplification of noise near the end points.
Increased noise means increased error in the reconstructed trend.
I didn’t bring up the obvious defects in assuming a linear model, which assumes that the relationship between the forcing and the measurement is “memoryless”.
* error in the model introducing bias.
I think this distinguishes us here in our world views:
You like this method because you like the result.
I don’t like the method, as it is being applied, so I find the result uninformative.
To be explicit, when I said “linear model” I meant the assumption of validity of linear regression between temperature and independent variables.
It should be disquieting that KevinC, one of WHTs references, has backed off this method too (along with Troy Masters).
My prediction is, if you do it right, the values near the end points aren’t going to be informative. The problem with the end points is loss of information. Using an OLS, no matter how fancy, is going to create information where it isn’t there. That missing information always creeps back into the result. (The exception is when you have a valid forecasting model, which is not true at all here.)
In the end, I suspect that the F&R method and it’s decedents are no more valid methods for estimating trend than simple OLS from linear regression.
Physics rules first and so we start by looking at energy balance. Consider a Gibbs energy formulation
dG = VdP – SdT – dEa – dEb – dEc …
where S can describe heat capacity terms and the X,Y terms can represent external forces such as EM and induced terms such as the GHG effect reducing the radiative outflow.
So we have:
LOD representing differential internal free energy described as a rotational kinetic energy -> dG
SOI representing a pressure differential -> VdP
Aerosols representing a reflective EM -> dEa
TSI representing an external EM driving force -> dEb
ln(CO2) representing a suppressive EM -> dEc
Temperature and heat capacity (S) combine -> SdT
We then have enough information to try to solve the first equation as a variational problem.
c1*LOI = c2*SOI – c3*dT – c4*TSI – c5*Aerosols – c6*ln(CO2)
That turns into multiple linear regression problem as we use data from each month from 188-2013 to solve it.
That is what goes into the linear model solver:
lm( dT ~ C + S + A + L + T )
and out pop the coefficients.
You have to admit that if this was a physics course and we had an enlightened professor in the peanut gallery (a resurrected Feynman anyone?) that he would applaud this as a very creative approach to solving an energy balance problem.
Uninformative is for statisticians that are not leveraging the physics that is already there waiting to be tapped.
WHT,
You should take a look in the paper R. Holme and O. de Viron: Geomagnetic jerks and a high-resolution length-of-day profile for core studies, Geophys. J. Int. (2005) 160, 435–439, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2004.02510.x.
From their Figure 1 you can see, how variations in calculated atmospheric angular momentum correspond exactly to the short-term variability of LOD, but are totally inadequate to explain multi-year variability. Obviously the angular momentum of the atmosphere cannot vary persistently enough to explain the multi-year and decadal variability. The correlations observed by Dickey and Marcus must be due to some less direct mechanism.
Thanks Pekka,
Interesting that O. de Viron was also co-author on the 2011 Dickey paper. So I am sure that the jerk mechanism was carefully considered.
Jerk is a high-order derivative — the derivative of acceleration in fact — so I am beginning to think that these core seismic shifts could be filtered out by watching carefully for the fast transients, leaving behind the slower ones for climate interpretation. Just guessing, though I am pleased with the way this is turning out.
Cappy, You really are getting crushed by the wheels of industry. This one is a killer:
http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/1231/1gfq.gif
Consider that a model like CSALT — which can take single-point measures such as SOI and aerosol events and combine these with aggregate measures such as CO2, LOD, and TSI — has the potential to be an extremely powerful projector of future climate.
Webster ” has the potential to be an extremely powerful projector of future
climateweather.”Hemisphere imbalances start the internal oscillations. Unless you model predict volcanic activity by hemisphere, it is just a weather oscillation fit. “Climate” appears to be a 30 to 60 year minimum period.
If you consider Pratt’s model, he had a head scratcher with the 1918 start on his SAW. 1850 is an issue with Mosher.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-HCYKCyRaDvc/UmJ-_tpiO_I/AAAAAAAAKBs/-ShFe2VIrgM/w672-h339-no/volcanic+aerosol+imbalance+plus+global+rescaled.png
No problem, the hemispheres have different sensitivities to forcings. In this one I used ERSST to create an extended tropics region 30S-30N. That is 50% of the global and two mid to high latitude regions, 25% of the globe each.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-4nyDMSL8lNs/UmKyzGD-T6I/AAAAAAAAKCY/XdctYkjl8iw/w868-h496-no/ERSST+three+zones.png
Fit your model to each region.
After you do that, consider the different lags that go with those different sensitivities.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-UFKlsCSB6eE/UmKV2o_gWaI/AAAAAAAAKCA/kOz85lP0oFo/w575-h338-no/SOI+and+Volcanic+impact.png
Now take out dLOD and replace with d(hemisphere)Volcanic
No Cappy, “you” can do that.
Webster, “No Cappy, “you” can do that.”
Done that. It indicates that sun spot number derived TSI is a waste of time and volcanic indirect effects are totally awesome :)
You just continue on with your Cyclomania ignoring folks like Pratt, Pekka and Carrick :)
WHT:
I diagnose “advanced case of cyclomania”
This is another one of my favorites:
http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/8137/lvi.gif
Think about the interpretation for a minute.
All one needs is a set of the following historical records to generate a decent fit:
1. Absolute value of CO2 concentration over time.
2. Atmospheric sea-level pressure at Tahiti and Darwin (SOI)
3. Estimates of aerosols for a few volcanic events (Pinatubo, El Chichon) and an average lifetime for being held aloft.
4. Value of Length-Of-Day correction to the earth’s rotation (LOD)
5. Estimate of the solar insolation fluctuation over time (TSI)
If that is a cyclomaniac, count me in. When one can combine all these extrinsic component measures that are not directly related to temperature and come up with a model fit of this high a fidelity, it is caused for rejoicing.
Assertion by model!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Another SysAdmin who finally cracked.
WebHubTelescope: has the potential to be an extremely powerful projector of future climate.
“potential” is a key word. Your model is what I called “live”.
WebHubTelescope: Consider that a model like CSALT — which can take single-point measures such as SOI and aerosol events and combine these with aggregate measures such as CO2, LOD, and TSI — has the potential to be an extremely powerful projector of future climate.
If your model is true, or really accurate, does the transient climate response to increase of CO2 equal the equilibrium climate response? As written, you have no lag at all between CO2 and T.
If your model is true, the rate of change of temperature is proportional to the inverse of the CO2 concentration. Have you tried to test that directly by modeling the estimated rates of change of temperature over the time during which CO2 concentrations have been measured? R has functions to compute consistent asymptotically normal estimates of the derivative at each time from the time series of first differences.
If your model is true, the rate of change of temperature is independent of SOI, LOD, and TSI. Does that make sense?
TCR is not the same as ECS. The two are closer to being the same on land.
Those are invariants as they add little cumulative shift from 1880 to current day. TSI can add something but it is tiny. SOI has no long-term bias by definition. LOD goes through multidecadal oscillations but balances to zero.
Aerosols damp out. All that is left is the CO2.
I could add another factor that only depends on time.
WebHubTelescope: TCR is not the same as ECS. The two are closer to being the same on land.
Let me try again: What if your model is true? Then what can you say about ECS and TCS?
WebHubTelescope: SOI has no long-term bias by definition
You have written that before. What is the long-term over which it has no bias? How does that arise “by definition”? Did it have a bias up until, say, 30 years ago, that has balanced to 0 since then?
WebHubTelescope: Those are invariants as they add little cumulative shift from 1880 to current day. TSI can add something but it is tiny. SOI has no long-term bias by definition. LOD goes through multidecadal oscillations but balances to zero.
Aerosols damp out. All that is left is the CO2.
Let’s see: it is really important to add them into the model to get a large R^2, but they add little cumulative shift from 1880 to current day.
but you avoided answering my questions: how realistic is it that the rate of change of global mean temp is proportional to the inverse of the CO2 concentration and independent of the other factors in the model? And what happens if you estimate the time series of annual rates of change of temp and model that?
Marler said:
Pressure differentials can not sustain. I keep on answering this and you keep on coming back with the same question.
All you want to do is set up stupid rhetorical traps Marler. Why would I estimate rates of change on a noisy time series when I would have to filter that result for it to make any sense? And then you would come back and say that the filtering is adding some sort of bias. No deal.
You do the task it if you want, the data is all there. Don’t be lazy, hit the keyboard and do the work.
WebHubTelescope: You do the task it if you want, the data is all there. Don’t be lazy, hit the keyboard and do the work.
I am glad that you suggested that. It’s on my list.
Murry Salby’s work shows the rate of temperature change to be independent of CO2 concentration.
What you called “rhetorical traps” are just the obvious questions anyone would ask about models, data, and modeling. Was T^3 reasonable? Probably not, and replacing it with ln(CO2) was the right thing to do. Will your model survive testing by out of sample data? We’ll see. Is it reasonable that the rate of change of temp be proportional to 1/CO2 concentration? If your model is sufficiently accurate, then it is reasonable. Contrariwise, if it is not reasonable (based on other reliable knowledge), then your model is not worth much despite the high R^2. If ECS is much greater than TCS, can your model be accurate in the future? And so on.
Unanswered questions reveal the limits of knowledge.
oops, another typo: your earlier model had temperature proportional to time^3, and you replaced the time^3 term with ln(CO2).
WebHubTelescope: Pressure differentials can not sustain. I keep on answering this and you keep on coming back with the same question.
No. You keep writing on the topic without answering the question: over what time span do the pressure differentials even out? Any time span you happen to choose for modeling?
http://diyclimate.x10.mx/responsemodel/nbox.html
Just looking at KevinC’s model output in his fig 4 and fig 5 I realise that his “volcanic forcing” actually ends up _warming_ the climate in the period when there was virtually no volcanism.
This is one of the problems with blindly regressing anything in sight without due though. That may be the “best fit” by OLS criteria but makes absolutely not sense.
For Hubby’s minimalistic description of his method : lm (y ~ c s a l t ) it seems obvious he making the same mistake.
This just substantiates my earlier criticisms.
Greg, “Just looking at KevinC’s model output in his fig 4 and fig 5 I realise that his “volcanic forcing” actually ends up _warming_ the climate in the period when there was virtually no volcanism.”
If you consider there is an “average” Volcanic cooling effect, less that “average” would appear to be a warming effect. Without some knowledge of what “average” really is, that kind of thing is going to happen.
LOL. No, zero volcanism mean ZERO effect of volcanism. There’s not way to spin it.
It’s not that it “appears” to be warming , it is numerically finite and positive in his figure 4. WTF?
Greg, “LOL. No, zero volcanism mean ZERO effect of volcanism. There’s not way to spin it.”
Only if you have the right baseline. With the right baseline there would be no “warming” volcanic effect other than snow/ice albedo change which would be small.
KevenC’s volcanic warming is really an indication that LIA recovery is ignore. That is pretty much a major issue with Webster’s model, he is removing “ALL” the noise, he thinks and assuming everything else in Nothing But Carbon. So find a slice on history with zero volcanic influence, then you have your Volcanic Zero Baseline.
“Without some knowledge of what “average” really is, that kind of thing is going to happen.”
No, without applying some intelligence and forethought in to way you account for the various forcings this sort of thing is going to happen.
A trivial linear regression is not an appropriate way to determine the power of volcanic forcing.
Take volcanoes out of lm() , they have negligible effect anyway. just live with the dips that happen somewhere near volcanoes. Half of it is false correlation anyway, to downward trends that start BEFORE the eruptions even happen. .
Greg, “It’s not that it “appears” to be warming , it is numerically finite and positive in his figure 4. WTF?”
That is just a fudge I imagine to compensate for not knowing what baseline should be used.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-4nyDMSL8lNs/UmKyzGD-T6I/AAAAAAAAKCY/XdctYkjl8iw/w868-h496-no/ERSST+three+zones.png
That uses a “Satellite” era baseline assuming we know about now than we do about 100 years ago. 1940 to 1950 is roughly the volcanic zero baseline though that is blurred by other aerosols. With that baseline the internal oscillations make more sense, at least to me.
Greg, “Take volcanoes out of lm() , they have negligible effect anyway. just live with the dips that happen somewhere near volcanoes. Half of it is false correlation anyway, to downward trends that start BEFORE the eruptions even happen. ”
This is kinda inconvenient :) That is one reason I use a year lag on eruptions to avoid that.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-HCYKCyRaDvc/UmJ-_tpiO_I/AAAAAAAAKBs/-ShFe2VIrgM/w672-h339-no/volcanic+aerosol+imbalance+plus+global+rescaled.png
That is using the Crowley data instead of the BEST volcanic. Much better fit to events.
Thanks for all the input. The correlation just keeps getting better and better.
This is my favorite so far:
http://imageshack.us/a/img41/1231/1gfq.gif
As a challenge, try to combine measures that have no DIRECT relation to temperature and see if you can recreate a global average temperature curve as good as this.
These are the ones I use in CSALT:
CO2 — Measure of concentration, no direct relation to temperature
SOI — Measure of pressure difference, relation to temperature via e.g. gas law but is really a trade wind term
Aerosols — Estimate of volcanic concentrations, no direct relation to temperature
LOI – Measure of rotation speed, no direct relation to temperature
TSI – Measure of EM power density, no direct relation to temperature
No cheating by using AMO or PDO as these have temperature already baked-in and have already gone through a detrending step.
Afterwards we will use a criteria measure like AIC or BIC to see which model does the best.
“This is kinda inconvenient :) ”
At least you are aware of it and recognise it.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=271
The first winter after eruption is warmer than general (blanket effect, not usually accounted for)
Tropics recover rapidly even compensating and recovering degree.day cumulative sum (growing days) . Ex-tropics recover previous temp within about 4 years but take a net loss in degree.days.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=310
(follow links in text for different regions)
My conclusion from that is volcanoes have little net impact on global mean temps and just cause a temporary dip. There is clearly a strong, non-linear negative f/b in tropics. This helps stabilise surrounding temperate zones by ocean heat circulation. Ex-tropical response is mroe like a simple negative f/b , or relaxation response.
“These are the ones I use in CSALT:
CO2 — Measure of concentration, no direct relation to temperature”
Wrong again , my friend. There is a very strong correlation between d/dt(CO2) and SST on both inter-annual and decadal scale.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=254
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=233
I guess you need to integrate that into your model too. That extra variable will probably get rid of the remaining deviation.
It is entirely possible that volcanos show a transient thermal absorption response before they turn into upper atmosphere radiation reflectors.
That’s what’s important about being able to remove the majority of the independent factors contributing to fluctuations — then one can isolate on the residual response and work on those to get an attribution.
My favorite one so far is the warming that shows a fast rise starting in October 1943, and is not related to an El Nino. The spike lasts for a couple of years. Any guesses as to attribution? I do have a rather obvious explanation, though not necessarily correct.
Greg, “My conclusion from that is volcanoes have little net impact on global mean temps and just cause a temporary dip.”
Right,that is why the imbalance between hemispheres is more interesting. There aren’t really that many “global” volcanic events it seems. Also Volcanic events prior to 1900 likely had a large impact on the accuracy of sun spot number count. So there is some cross contamination of the solar volcanic data. 10Be TSI reconstructions in the NH show more TSI variation than there should be. Using “Solar” as a general proxy for solar, volcanic and orbital seems to produce a better fit going back to 1750 with BEST.
Yes, that is the slight outgassing contribution. In a multiple linear regression, that would have little effect whereby the change between 280 PPM and 400 PPM certainly overshadows the second-order Arrhenius thermal activation rate laws as the underlying temperature fluctuates.
IOW
dCO2(man-made) >> dCO2(T)
See more here:
http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2012/03/co2-outgassing-model.html
http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/03/stochastic-analysis-of-log-sensitivity.html
Capt. the imbalance idea is interesting , I’d not heard of it before. However, that seems to add another complication and this is mess already.
The only reason volcanoes are talked about so often is that they provide and excuse to pump up CO2 with spurious feedback amplification. That worked OK while there was both CO2 and volcanism. Now one is missing we see the fallacy that was not evident when both were present.
Greg, Another complication?
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-JKxA08Jb_dw/UmLxH8ole2I/AAAAAAAAKCs/JlYHPKOVgXs/w779-h483-no/sol+y+vol.png
That is Solar TSI reconstructed with Volcanic by hemisphere. dLOD is mainly the Earth’s crust shifting around. Doncha think that would have something to do with earthquake and volcanoes?
The increase in soil respiration is about 20% of anthropogenic CO2 flux and the increase in tropical plant respiration is about 50%. The outgassing is a another component. So the increase in CO2 flux due to temperature is the same order of magnitude as anthropogenic emissions.
Is this a positive feedback? Not if most of the recent warming was natural and reversible.
Short term LOD change is almost entirely due to interactions between ocean mass and solid Earth, for one reason or another. Yes, this could add an additional stress that could be the trigger for seismic and volcanic events.
Even ocean/atmosphere mass transfer effects on LOD are communicated to land mainly through ocean interactions with the continents.
A typical statement on the short term LOD changes seems to be:
Jean O. Dickey, Steven L. Marcus, and Olivier de Viron: Closure in the Earth’s angular momentum budget observed from subseasonal periods down to four days: No core effects needed
(The main result of the paper is that lags between changes in LOD, AAM and OAM are not significant, thus no additional mechanism are needed to explain such lags.)
OMG he’s regressing TEN different time series too, Since he does not seem to allow arbitrary phase then is about the same parameter count as WHT’s model .
come on guy’s, a little thought please.
You are accepting these results without being critical of your own methods because you are in denial about the implications of the pause.
apologies to KevinC , in absentia. It seems his interactive page does no fitting at all. It’s just a tool to fiddle around with. Maybe WHT should have linked us to his top level page here he explains what it’s all about and how he got the final result WHT links to.
mind you , the fact that it does what it does when you put in a non zero value means my point still stands. It apparently normalises the each record to mean-zero unity variance and scales with the inserted constant. This can never right for volcanism and likely some other physical quantities too.
“My favorite one so far is the warming that shows a fast rise starting in October 1943, and is not related to an El Nino. The spike lasts for a couple of years. Any guesses as to attribution?”
Data sampling issues most likely. I made the point before but you are struggling to explain every last dimple in data that has huge uncertainty, severe sampling issues and speculative ‘corrections’ for the latter.
You will end up fitting to data errors and degrading your model.
Parsimonious means knowing when to stop. I would suggest you stop at SOI. That did seem to ‘de-noise’ the data rather well , which is why I’d like you to accurately describe how you did it. I think it may be worth adopting.
Apparently there is something about your method you don’t want open to scrutiny.
It’s all written in a domain specific language, and I use R to do the regression. The general idea is not difficult to grok.
I have to include TSI because it comes back with a value very close to what is theoretically predicted. If I don’t include this then some skeptic will scream that it wasn’t included. The contribution of LOD results in a value close to what Dickey found. The volcanic aerosols are also a no-brainer to keep in because they do have a known effect.
Wow, I am really going off the deep end aren’t I ?
I have to include TSI…to what is theoretically predicted
Lean model is wrong.The theoretical predictions have already diverged to become incoherent.
The model failed first as they assumed the observational data was correct,whereas the faster degradation of instruments on Virgo ( the knee being in the ascension of the previous cycles .Secondly the model does not account for spectral irriadiance ie at odds with the observations where the variance is at the short end and not invariant across all spectra.
“It’s all written in a domain specific language”
I’m not asking that you post the code but at least describe your algo.
Are you just subtracting your quadratic and regressing SOI (ampltude and lag?), fitting by eye or waht?
Which direction do you lag LOD? Both Wyatt/Curry and my examination show LOD changing _after_ SST.
There is no quadratic. I moved to using the CO2 directly. See more explanation on this thread by searching on Gibbs and read the detailed explanation.
Jeez, it’s like pulling hens teeth. Answers come one drip at a time.
For the third time of asking, could you clarify which direction you apply the lags ? All the same direction, which?
LOD seems to lag SST. Just stating “lag” values is ambiguous unless you state what is lagging what.
BTW the out-gassing article looks very interesting. It’s going to take some time to check it through but I like the approach.
” Greg Goodman | October 20, 2013 at 4:16 am |
For the third time of asking, could you clarify which direction you apply the lags ? All the same direction, which? ”
If I release aerosols in the air as a discrete event or impulse , the effect will temporally lag from the action as the aerosols disperse. It has to be in a direction that obeys causality, which should not be difficult to intuit.
As a rough approximation we can always say that the lag function is an exponential damped response on the stimulus. I suppose I can state “exponentially damped response” or “first-order impulse response function” every time I describe this effect or I can just say “lag”.
“SOI representing a pressure differential -> VdP”
So you are effectively taking the pressure difference between two geographic points and using it as a pressure increment applied to the whole atmosphere (whose volume you consider constant) as a change in enthalpy. Not good.
“… (a resurrected Feynman anyone?) that he would applaud this as a very creative approach to solving an energy balance problem.”
A bit too creative IMHO, I’m sure your resurrected Feymann would have cut you down to size very quickly on this one.
c1*LOD = c2*SOI – c3*dT – c4*TSI – c5*Aerosols – c6*ln(CO2)
So why don’t you regress that?
lm( L ~ C + S + A + dT + T )
Does it give the same result?
d(PV) = PdV +Vdp
The first is a work term (units Force*dDistance), which will eventually will get turned into heat, dQ = dW, and then into a dT rise. The problem is that we cannot directly measure this work term and especially not back to the 1880”s.
Incidentally, in the ideal gas law PV=nRT
so that d(PV) = nR dT
which shows this work to heat to temperature (via heat capacity) equivalence directly
The Gibbs free energy is defined as
G = U + PV – TS
where one can see the ideal gas law embedded into a total energy concept, where U is internal energy.
And I realize that the spatio-temporal aspects are ignored. Tough nougies, because thermodynamics as practiced at this level does not consider all the continuity equations. We are simply trying to balance the gross energy terms to isolate the pieces of interest, which in this case is the energy change related to GHGs.
As Pekka and I discussed elsewhere in this thread, the global angular momentum measure is closely correlated to the dP measure as well, so that the dP term is also performing as a proxy for other delta energy terms.
Some energy term is balancing the temperature fluctuations, and that something is a combination of latent energy, heat capacity, and energy transformations as the SOI and LOD terms illustrate.
Thank you for not epiloguing, Web.
Willard,
As in not trying to force a closure?
I think commenting as if the conversation never ends helps improve rhetorical validity, Web.
Willard,
Is rhetoric ever valid in science?
rephrase it as:
“I think commenting as if the conversation never ends helps improve the dialectic reasoning”
This is a journey and it hasn’t ended yet.
Looking at your work on oilconundrum, I wonder how your ‘regressed’ to this trivia.
The combination doesn’t matter. It is an energy minimization argument and if the signs are flipped then they come back in the opposite direction and all is square. So sure, one can reconstruct any one of the regressor values in terms of a combination of the others.
As an example, consider TSI. This is defined as the pressure difference between Tahiti and Darwin. The sign of the coefficient wrt to temperature is in one direction for that definition. If the TSI was defined as Darwin minus Tahiti, the coefficient would take the other sign
The basic premise in all this is that were looking at an energy balance and perturbing the system by looking at the energy differential wrt to various contributions to the system. Nature will pick a path that has a stationary point of action. One has to account for all the ways that energy can transform so as not to lose track of any of the major pathways.
The residual, or what is left over, is noise. This noise is either systemic (caused by measurement errors, etc) or aleatory which is contributions from everything else we don’t yet fully comprehend, or can’t because of the shear number of other paths.
It’s not like we can do everything perfectly but picking up these patterns is important. Like I showed you, it is remarkable how dT can be reconstructed from the other energy constituents.
.
Thanks for clarifications.
“SOI representing a pressure differential -> VdP”
So you are effectively taking the pressure difference between two geographic points and using it as a pressure increment applied to the whole atmosphere (whose volume you consider constant) as a change in enthalpy.
I appreciate we could construct this either way , but in neither sense can it have the enthalpy interpretation you need for the underlying premise.
I can see that LOD makes sense as an energy storage term, though that suggests the need for AAM and that will get very woolly.
Are you using LOD or detrended LOD?
Talkbloke has been splashing around with detrended LOD, but is not valid since century long warming will leave a century long trend in LOD. Equally , it cannot be left without some account of energy transferred to Earth-moon couple and this is essential since it will be possibly greater than the trend due to temperature change. At least the latter should be reasonably well calculable. The residual could be regarded as heat dissipation, so it should work be useful as on input.
This question of LOD trend is key since it will play out on temp trend.
I think the Vdp thing is fundamentally wrong if you regard this as a physical energy model as you outlined. (Which seems a good idea).
Just because it has the correct units does mean it fits your energy balance equation.
Maybe you have a another way to explain that but that looks like a problem.
It does work rather well as an denoiser, so maybe there is a way to account for this.
SOI~dP is proportional to atmospheric angular momentum. I pulled in the data myself yesterday to check:
http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/8603/ad5b.gif
I imagine a picture of some oaf splashing around in the bathtub with his rubber duckie toys.
Give me a break, when you start bringing in these out-and-out crackpots like TallBloke is where I draw the line.
SOI~dP is proportional to atmospheric angular momentum. I pulled in the data myself yesterday to check:
http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/8603/ad5b.gif
“Talkbloke has been splashing around with detrended LOD, ”
I imagine a picture of some oaf splashing around in the bathtub with his rubber duckie toys.
Give me a break, when you start bringing in these out-and-out crackpots like TallBloke is where I draw the line.
=========
Then you understand my use of the term splashing around. ;)
I asked whether you were detrending, I was not recommending it (other than accounting energy transfer to E-M couple if you don’t).
“SOI~dP is proportional to atmospheric angular momentum. ”
Cool. Maybe that is what you should be using. I’m very cautious of that kind of fabricated data but it may be interesting to try it. Does the simple CO2/SOI detrending get better or worse if you use AAM?
It may be to call SOI a proxy for AAM.
From my look at LOD and Nino1.2 there is a pretty tight relationship, so I think ocean / atm mass transfer is a major factor.
Are you detrending LOD?
I didn’t use that because the GLAAM only goes back to 1960 and I wanted to do a complete regression back to 1880.
I don’t detrend anything unless I am working terrain analysis. Unless you know what is causing a trend, you probably shouldn’t detrend it.
Wubbie,
” it is remarkable how dT can be reconstructed from the other energy constituents.”
You really are a MORON!!
Webster you are still wandering around in the Cyclomaniac weeds by not using the data to verify your assumptions
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/EzfTBLK1qP5HQG3sS3oqnRWaNCLmAfzW8OTOi7ddzU4=w379-h193-p-no
It is not that hard. There a difference in the land response and the ocean response that you can use. There is a difference in the hemisphere responses you can use. But Nooooo, you over fit one data set, “global” and assume you have all the lags figure out. You are doing a great job showing exactly why Climate Science is so F’up.
The point 0.8 sensitivity is based ocean heat content at 4C average temperature. You should really consider some of the “opposition” views.
http://edberry.com/SiteDocs/PDF/Climate/KimotoPaperReprint.pdf
Webster and Greg. Since you both are trying to produce an unbelievable level of precision with you Cyclomania, consider this.
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2013/10/its-complicated-that-is-why-they-call-it.html
Capt’nDallas
I seem to be able to follow the graph lines better.
Query: If weather is acknowledged to be chaotic and we are speaking of a 10 day or so window; and, if climate is weather averaged out over time: 30, 60 or more years, why hasn’t climate been acknowledged to be chaotic as well? If I am not mistaken, the answer put forth is that the models and their multiple runs, are said to “average” out the chaos in the model run reports. Then climate models would have removed the noise of chaos to “see” the signal of CO2. That is, all the errors attributable to weather, including sensitivity to initial conditions, all goes away.
From this graph, my understanding, the errors as defined in the CO2 changes are still relevant, and their magnitude still need to be accounted for in discussing climate.
Of course, I could have confused myself.
RiH008, You have to include everything that is significant and what is significant depends on you desired degree of precision. The tighter the tolerances the more chaotic everything, system, models, data etc. become. This is one of those back off a few steps and look at the problem again type of situations.
As far as “climate” goes, a 30 year smooth reduces most on the weather noise giving you something to fit with a reasonable error range so you don’t have to magnify some obscure signal by a factor of ten to get a “fit”. That is the reason that ocean heat content or SST is a better metric than “global” or land temperatures. Land amplifies impacts and overshoots the mean. You end up fitting to an overshoot or under shoot and getting all excited about the end of the world. :)
CO2 is what I used as a “reference”. Part of that could be water vapor from something that may have happened 60 years ago. the object should be to get reliable references that can be used to merge current data with paleo to see what “climate” really is. That means lower precision.
RiHo08:
“…why hasn’t climate been acknowledged to be chaotic as well?”
I’ve wondered that as well. It’s an important given that much that follows relies on that.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/chaos-theory-global-warming-can-climate-be-predicted-intermediate.htm
With the conclusion above: To sum up, the weather is chaotic because it can run free, climate is on a leash. Pull the leash hard enough and the climate responds.
Lorenz:
“Lorenz and others argued that the recently observed global warming might be no evidence of a greenhouse effect or any other external influence, but only a chance excursion in the drunkard’s random walk.”(34)
34. Trewartha and Horn (1980) (5th edition), pp. 392-95. Lorenz continued to press this view into the 1990s.
The apparent author of the above SkS conclusion is: Jacob Bock Axelsen, who I am sure is qualified, however as the article says,
“His interest in climate science is purely non-professional.”
Axelsen in his conclusion uses time it seems to indicate some things, not so chaotic. I keep thinking of, Chaos on all scales.
Long term attractors may be the friend of the not so chaotic people. Providing current stability, such as the interglacial we are apparently in. Maybe be if an attractor is long term enough, it can be ignored 95% or 99% of time. It may be that other medium term attractors also provide stability with which to build a more linear approach upon.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/EzfTBLK1qP5HQG3sS3oqnRWaNCLmAfzW8OTOi7ddzU4=w379-h193-p-no
Too small and blurred to read properly.
What I see is the need to double the CO2 coeff , this may be expected since land moves twice as fast, what’s your point?
Odd that it didn’t enlarge, try the blog
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2013/10/its-complicated-that-is-why-they-call-it.html
The point is that hemispherical imbalances are irregular and can be out of phase. Assuming there is an exponentially damped recovery from a perturbation will assume away the full response which is what you really what to know.
Volcanic impact is “small” when the forcing is “global” only because a portion of the short term impact is “averaged” out. There are basically different “sensitivities” to different “forcings” at different “times” due to thermal inertia. So anything you “resolve” in one “global” data set will be misleading if you don’t compare to regional data. It’s the “Stadium Wave” after all.
“I don’t detrend anything unless I am working terrain analysis. Unless you know what is causing a trend, you probably shouldn’t detrend it.”
With you 100% on that. Wish that was more the ‘trend’ in climatology.
However, that brings me back to what I said above about the downward trend that does exist in angular velocity (ie upwards in LOD. )
There is a significant loss of rotational energy due to tidal drag transferring angular momentum from Earth’s axial rotation to the Earth-Moon system (Earth slows, EM distance increases). This is simple billiard ball mechanics and should be calculable to a high degree of accuracy. It’s surely been done already.
At the worst, use JPL ephemeris to find average distance of Moon over 200 years.
Since you are using LOD as an measure of rotational energy in your equation, you really need to account for this energy transfer.
Any residual downward trend once this is accounted for can reasonably been assumed to be energy dissipated as heat in the oceans etc. as you outlined above.
There has been some discussion on the mechanisms that drive variability in LOD. In some of my comments on the issue I have given too much weight for the variability in the moment of inertia of the Earth. It’s an important factor over longer periods and reduces the rate of lengthening of the day by tidal effects. It’s, however, too weak to have much effect on shorter timescales. Thus the core-mantle interaction is believed to dominate the variability over a wide range of timescales from years to centuries. A good description of that is given by Richard S. Gross: Earth Roation Variations – Long Period
While much seems to remain unknown on the details of the mechanisms, it seems clear that climatic phenomena cannot affect significantly the LOD over periods longer than a few years. That raises the question of the validity of the idea of the stadium wave. How could the multi-decadal stadium wave work when one of the steps is very unlikely to be influenced by the previous one. The evidence for the stadium wave covers less than two full periods, and is therefore rather weak. All the agreement found in the paper over such a short period may well be accidental. If that’s the case the same accidental agreement is also behind the observations of Dickey, Marcus, and de Viron (2010). The observations are interesting, but perhaps not strong enough.
Too much looking for causation in correlation, and not enough vision for more primary causes.
===========
Looking at correlations is fine, but the results should be interpreted as hints only, when the amount of information is not much, much larger.
Looking at correlations is fine, but the results should be interpreted as hints only
The best approach to understand the 3 mode interplay is a physical experiment .Here period 8 is the foremost significant spectra .
http://www.nonlin-processes-geophys.net/19/335/2012/
Geodynamo models do show natural torsional oscillations of ~60 years according to some cited papers.
[1]S. Braginsky, “Short-period geomagnetic secular variation,” Geophysical & Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics, vol. 30, no. 1–2, pp. 1–78, 1984.
These are known as Alfven waves discovered in 1942
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.3879.pdf
Pekka, “That raises the question of the validity of the idea of the stadium wave. ” That would depend on what you think the “Stadium Wave” is. If you think it is defining causes of multi-decadal climate, you are right. It you think it is a tool to describe response to various unknown forcing combination, then wrong, you don’t need to know the cause of the harmonics to use the combinations.
LOD is likely related to unknown or underestimated climate drivers, like combined tidal forcing variations which can impact plate tectonics, volcanoes, ocean currents, ice mass stability etc. etc. There is a better than you might expect correlation between volcanic activity and sun spot number count.
In fact the newer Crowley and Unterman 2013 volcanic data by hemisphere shows a remarkable correlation.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-yihM-DkDOdg/UmSVl0EACeI/AAAAAAAAKD0/FmNq0CiRT1Y/w779-h483-no/sol+y+vol.png
Imbalance volcanic forcing can cause a variety of internal oscillation ans the system tries to redistribute energy. I think the Stadium Wave just shows there are more questions to be asked of the theory and the data.
As long as the statements are on the level of unknown factors that can in unknown way have unknown consequences, they do not deserve much attention.
Many of these proposals seem to me very unlikely to be true based on intuitive feeling about the orders of magnitudes of the strengths of the mechanisms. Earth is massive and it takes something comparable to change the LOD even by a few milliseconds. Most of the proposed mechanisms are probably far too weak to have any observable effect.
When the statistical evidence is also weak, making a proposal worth any consideration by others requires that it’s supported by a calculation that shows it’s potential for producing effects of right order of magnitude.
The cauldron gets many ingredients, some apparently magical.
============
Cappy,
The data may not mean what you think it means.
Large volcanic eruptions could send enough particulates and aerosols in the sky to obscure the historical observation of sun-spots.
I also note how you truncate the TSI data after about 1950-1960, even though there are some fairly big eruptions Agung, El Chicon, Pinatubo.
Is that because we can now see the sunspots much better with our technology than in earlier times? But you did not want to show the poor correlation with those later dates?
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction.png
Methinks you are a serial violator of science, thus your “Redneck” moniker.
—
This is indeed a good paper by C&U:
http://www.earth-syst-sci-data-discuss.net/5/1/2012/essdd-5-1-2012.pdf
Webster, “I also note how you truncate the TSI data after about 1950-1960, even though there are some fairly big eruptions Agung, El Chicon, Pinatubo.
Right. What I am looking at is the less reliable solar compared to the newer Volcanic. Sun spot count is very questionable per Lief Svalgaard and volcanic aerosols could impact the accuracy of earlier sun spot numbers. That appears to make SSN a general forcing estimate instead of a purely TSI estimate. The 10Be reconstruction have the same issues.
As far are your BS slander, I am working from the better data back to try and resolve issues, not ignore the quality data.
btw Webster, this is the C&U data less heavily damped.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-YjYfm5ZJZqw/UmU3fme1SAI/AAAAAAAAKEM/iyRuOqCIoTY/w667-h387-no/C+and+U+with+trend.png
Notice there is a long term trend.
Good summary of the literature, Pekka.
Right now the Stadium Wave/LOD is in the category of a phenomenological behavior that can be described by a heuristic of a ~60 year cycle. If the cycle does not reoccur in the future, that heuristic will get shot down. But that is the nature of a heuristic, in that it is a stop-gap measure to describe something that is not yet completely understood.
One piece of analysis that can provide some insight is the importance of the LOD depending on the temperature series used.
If I use a global series such as GISS-LOTI or HadCrut, then the LOD influence is clearly there. However, if I use the Land-based CruTEM or BEST or GISS-land (dTs) series, the LOD influence is a factor of 2X – 4X lower in strength.
This is GISS comparison, where you can see the LOD factor much lower in the land residual
http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/9053/n4c.gif
In fact, the contribution is still there because many of the land observations are near the ocean; yet it is suppressed in comparison to when 70% of the readings are from SST.
Try it out here:
http://entroplet.com/context_salt_model/navigate
Bottomline, the LOD does not seem to have as big an impact on land temperatures as on SST.
“One piece of analysis that can provide some insight is the importance of the LOD depending on the temperature series used.
If I use a global series such as GISS-LOTI or HadCrut, then the LOD influence is clearly there. However, if I use the Land-based CruTEM or BEST or GISS-land (dTs) series, the LOD influence is a factor of 2X – 4X lower in strength.”
One of the big issues with this is that you’re using a annual global temperature series, LOD changes will show up better if you daily averages from stations north and south of the tropic, separately.
You can see this here http://www.science20.com/virtual_worlds/analysis_night_time_cooling_based_ncdc_station_record_data-115410
As I note at the beginning, I originally thought I was looking at the change in daily min temp, turned out it was actually change in max temp. But if you make it towards the bottom, I think delta LOD clearly shows up.
It’s remarkable that:
a) Marcia Wyatt has triggered a CE awakening to LOD, global AAM, & the work of Jean Dickey & Nikolay Sidorenkov.
b) WKT2011 Figure 4 did not trigger this awakening. (Why was it necessary to have CE’s host as co-author to draw due attention?)
It’s good to see an abrupt CE awakening, but frankly you guys are 3 years behind and you’ve completely missed the 2 most crucially informative solar-terrestrial-climate observations.
You are such a tease. Well, climate is.
============
Vaughan is the most enigmatic of the CEC’s
“This is indeed a good paper by C&U:
http://www.earth-syst-sci-data-discuss.net/5/1/2012/essdd-5-1-2012.pdf
”
Indeed. That looks like a very serious and informative paper. I’ll be diggining to the details of what it reveals later.
Thx
Pekka: ” the moment of inertia of the Earth. It’s an important factor over longer periods and reduces the rate of lengthening of the day by tidal effects. It’s, however, too weak to have much effect on shorter timescales. ”
There seems to be notable correlation on interannual scale between SST and d/dt(LOD) around El Nino events
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=556
Equally LOD itself (the integral of the above) seems to under-pininter-decadal scale variations in the Nino 1+2 region.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=554
The apparent direction of causation suggests this is SST affecting LOD, presumably by mass transfer to atmosphere.
This is in the sense of that suggested in Wyatt/Curry paper, so seems to disagree with you comment, unless I’ve misunderstood your meaning.
“As long as the statements are on the level of unknown factors that can in unknown way have unknown consequences, they do not deserve much attention.”
That is really the way I regard talk of Earth core effects.
The more inaccessible the explanations are to verification , the more desperate they look.
As global warming decending into the Abyss, rotational energy hides even deeper in the core of the Earth.
Greg,
There’s no doubt an effect related to El Niño / La Nina. I quoted a statement related to that in one of my comments, but looking at the calculated atmospheric angular momentum and how it agrees with variability in LOD that seems to lead to effects of 2-3 year maxim duration.
On longer time scales the forces that affect the atmosphere at different latitudes cause the deviation to vanish. Near equator angular momentum is transferred to the atmosphere, at higher latitudes the opposite effect persists, there are limits in what this combination may sustain.
The problem with the stadium wave hypothesis is that for it to be valid this effect should be more persistent and a couple of times stronger than it appears to be based on more direct observations and also on theoretical arguments. To reach a better compatibility a direct interaction with the core would be needed. Magnetic fields lead to some interaction, but I don’t believe that the core can be influenced much through magnetic phenomena related to the other steps of the stadium wave hypothesis.
Too Rube Goldberg, and yet, it moves.
=========
Richard S. Gross: Earth Roation Variations – Long Period
Very helpful. Unfortunately it just points out this area of study is about as confused and indeterminate as climate itself.
One thing I don’t understand from that way it is presented (which seems to be the ‘orthodox’ language) is the question of “tidal dissipation”.
I see two distinct effects in Earth-Moon interaction.
1. The moon raises oceanic and solid Earth tides which by a secondary effect it exerts a gravitational drag on the Earth’s rotation. This force leads to transfer of rotational energy from Earth’s axial rotation to the rotation of the E-M couple.
2. As well as tidal drag above, the induced movements in oceans and the Earth’s crust provoke frictional losses. Both these are dissipative processes. The convert rotational energy to heat. They do not contribute to energy transfer, they are lossy processes the degrade ordered rotational energy to disordered heat energy.
Maybe I’m just not paying close enough attention, but it seems from the paper that “tidal disipation” is used as a common term and it gives the impression that it is the dissipative process that affects lunar acceleration.
I don’t see any distinction between the two processes, one which transfers energy and momentum to the Earth-moon system and another which dissipated heat internally in the Earth.
Am I missing something in that presentation?
Thx
Greg,
Without any dissipation the tide would have zero lag relative to the direction of the moon. Under such conditions no transfer of angular momentum would occur. With dissipation the maximum tide occurs a little after the meridian has passed the direction to the moon. Thus it leads to transfer of angular momentum.
When angular momentum is transferred the energy of the moon increases slightly, while the rotational energy of the Earth decreases much more, because the ratio of energy to angular momentum is inversely proportional to the effective radius of movement, which is much larger for the orbit of the moon than it’s for the Earth. The difference must be dissipated (i.e transformed from rotational energy to some other form of energy). The requirement that both energy and angular momentum are conserved means that there’s an unique connection between the rate of exchange of angular momentum and the rate of dissipation. In the case of tides the energy taken very slowly off from the rotational has no other route to follow than to end up as heat at a rate much faster than that of the transfer of angular momentum (century is a short time in that).
When the flows within the core, oceans or atmosphere are modified in the transfer of angular momentum from the mantle, the energy may be stored in other collective motion. The processes are fast enough for those other forms of motion to persist long enough to make reversal of the transfer possible. In such cases only a fraction of the transferred rotational energy is lost in irreversible dissipation.
The connectivity can get Tube Goldberg-like. It starts with sunspots which are a perturbation on the solar output. This influences the geomagnetic core of the earth to some resonance perhaps. The core oscillations are transferred to the ocean via subtle angular momentum shifts. These shifts cause oscillations in the circulation of the water. The exchange of cold and warm water at 60 year cycles leads to a puny 0.1 C change in global average surface temperature.
That while the contribution due to GHGs is 10x this small oscillation.
It is still an interesting scientific question.
I don’t see AMO as only 10% of N Atl SST variation.
If there is some part of this system that is poorly correlating due to data errors or mis-identification it could be dampening the fitted magnitude. It’s far too early for this hypothesis to be providing definitive numbers on whiich it can be dismissed as an irrelevance.
Greg
I don’t understand why you expect SST to correlate with LOD. LOD can’t change the upwelling in the east pacific, dLOD can, so SST/dLOD correlation seems logical to me.
I don’t expect anything, I’m looking at the data and trying to interpret.
Increase in SST will cause evaporation => mass transfer to atm => change in ang. momentum = > d/dt(LOD)
The sum (integral) of this effect over time will be shown in LOD ( not it’s rate of change), so decadal scale change in SST will be reflected in LOD.
I matched a lag of about 7.6 years between underlying SST and LOD changes, this suggests a dominant cycle of 4*7.6=30.4 years.
Not a startling result for El Nino regions in view of the circa 30 variation in PDO.
In case it’s not obvious, I’m equating 7.6 to pi/2 phase there.
PPS Increase in SST will cause evaporation => mass transfer to atm => change in ang. momentum = > d/dt(LOD)
That should have said “increased” SST. ie deviation of SST from some localised equilibrium, rather than meaning rate of change of…
Hence the inter-annual correlation between SST and d/dt(LOD).
Thank you Pekka. That is pretty much as I understood it.
So dissipation is the cause of the lag that in turn allows a transfer of momentum but the dissipational energy loss is separate from the energy that is transferred and much greater.
Any energy stored in a reversible process will presumably not affect long term n-dot or LOD (by definition). It is the dissipation, not the storage that is relevant.
Sure much of the energy imparted to surface tides is not lost when it interacts with a continental boundary and complex standing waves are set up. However, there is internal friction and frictional loss on interaction with land.
Coriolis force is also an expression of conservation of momentum and causes atmospheric circulation and the great ocean gyres. Most of that energy is ultimately dispersed in erosion and viscous losses.
So , if I follow you logic, LOD is an accurate measure of ang. mom change but not all of which goes to E-M rotation. Something of the order of 20% GIA/oblateness, essentially non-lossy (similar radius).
Since Roman warm period was .. warm, there will be some AAM effect too.
Beyond that, LOD is a reflection of the dissipative heat input to climate system due to momentum transfer to Earth-moon couple since that’s where the majority of the energy ends up.
On that basis would it be reasonable to assume that most of the LOD signal in the last 150 years is a proxy for heat input?
Greg,
I don’t think that any part of the heat energy released through dissipatien related to changes in LOD is of any relevance. The amounts of energy are too small for that. The short term variability (up to a few years) reflects directly the variability in atmospheric angular momentum and can be used as indicator of that. Thus the connection to the state of the atmosphere is strong in that.
Over longer periods I would not expect anything relevant for understanding climate. The empirical correlations are fairly strong as shown by both Dickey et al and Wyatt & Curry, but I don’t consider that strong evidence as the correlation consists really only of very few minimums and maximums. That much may very well be accidental.
One-way interaction where the changes in LOD are causally connected to changes in the geomagnetic fields and they affect climate is easier to contemplate than two-way interaction needed in the idea of stadium waves, but I’m not convinced of any causal connection.
The LOD is still a good heuristic because it creates a long-term fluctuation which matches a stadium wave modulation in the warming signal of maximally +/- 0.1 C in the global temperature time series.
example: http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/9949/1uk.gif
interactive: http://entroplet.com/context_salt_model/navigate
As always, we can toss this heuristic out when we can figure out a better explanation for the behavior.
WHT,
Adding to the other doubts the lag of 90 months makes me convinced that the value of LOD in your fit is almost certainly spurious. Some strange phenomenon acting through the magnetic fields could, in principle, be involved and make such an effect possible, but the evidence from the fit is far too weak to make that likely in this case.
The stadium effect is trying to explain an oscillation of 60 to 64 years which is over 700 months. Having a lag of 60 to 90 months (which is the span that improves the fit) after some disturbance is not unheard of with respect to the longer period of ~10x this amount. Long lag times are in fact what can lead to stimulating resonant frequencies of the appropriate time scale.
This is the way that many physical processes manifest themselves. The lags are commensurate with the observational time scale.
The evidence is that the LOD effect impacts the SST much more strongly than the land-based temperature data. In this case, it is possible that the instability is in the ocean circulation patterns — and that the mass balances potentially caused by angular momentum shifts lead the propagation of the resultant temperature shifts. In other words, core mantle shifts lead the inertial ocean mass balance shifts, which then lead the temperature shifts as the circulatory patterns shift subtly.
The planet is a rotating sphere with a water surface. If you think that an angular momentum shift won’t impact the water stability, your intuition may have failed you. Water has a lag time of its own, as anyone who has navigated a car versus a speedboat versus an ocean tanker knows.
The Stadium Wave hypothesis is the deconstruction of what is happening on a spatio-temporal scale.
I do agree that the effect is very minor in comparison to the much larger GHG-based AGW signal, but explaining it is an interesting scientific problem.
WHT,
Concerning atmospheric angular momentum, it’s overall size tells that it cannot vary enough to explain variability in LOD beyond about 1 ms. Actual calculations of AAM confirm its role.
The oceans have a much larger mass. Therefore I’m much more dependent of actual calculations of variability OAM than in the case of AAM. Based on what I have read on the results of such calculations, it seems clear that the variability in OAM is less than that in AAM. I’ll certainly change my mind on this, if someone presents convincing calculations that tell about long term variability in OAM at level that leads to changes of several ms in LOD and with potential persistence of several decades.
It appears that no one is any longer suggesting that OAM variability is the main factor responsible for the LOD shifts. The LOD shifts are likely caused by something else.
On the other hand, the actual LOD shifts could cause enough of a perturbation to the ocean’s circulating patterns to produce warming responses.
There is not much use arguing over this idea if someone doesn’t chime in and agree that the LOD working in this fashion is a contributor to the Stadium Wave hypothesis. That appears to be one of Wyatt and Curry’s premises after all — that the LOD is a precursor to the start of a wave.
“The short term variability (up to a few years) reflects directly the variability in atmospheric angular momentum and can be used as indicator of that. Thus the connection to the state of the atmosphere is strong in that.”
So interdecal LOD as the integral that short term variability will reflect long term changes in global temperature (SST at least). This would account for the general simililarity on that scale since 1880.
The somewhat variable downward trend (1500 year oscillation noted in the paper) is mostly due to momentum transfer to Earth-Moon couple, so using it in a regression on SST will artificially inflate the long term rise that WHT’s multivariate regression will attribute to CO2.
Though neither are correct, Tallbloke’s naively detrended LOD is probably closer.
Thanks for your input.
To clear matters up, Tallbloke’s analysis is wrong.
It’s a hint. See Dickey & Keppenne (1997).
WHubT: http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.fr/2012/03/co2-outgassing-model.html
I’ve posted a question about your out-gassing model. This is an excellent approach on an important aspect of CO2 rise that needs following up on.
Pekka Pirilä | October 21, 2013 at 8:12 am | wrote:
“[…] climatic phenomena cannot affect significantly the LOD over periods longer than a few years. That raises the question of the validity of the idea of the stadium wave.”
–
WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | October 20, 2013 at 2:33 pm | wrote:
“Welcome to the world of enigmatic and inscrutable research papers.”
Core-mantle modeling (placeholder) = inconsistent with observations
In contrast: integral of global AAM = consistent
Pekka’s view = incomplete &/or politically biased (sensible observers beware — Pekka is skipping due diligence & due process necessary for justice)
WHT seeing more clearly
nevermind misleading “14%” variance = distorted-vision BS
New — to be added to kim’s open files:
http://imageshack.us/a/img12/2865/zxny.png
beware mirage coupling (which is real function of 4D spatiotemporal aggregation incl. water phases & associated heat transfers)
sensible parties — advised:
Read Sidorenkov & Dickey more carefully
Paul
I have understood all the time that I disagree with you. I maintain my views in spite of that. If you consider it of any interest to convince me and those others that have similar views, you must present your evidence much more explicitly than you have done so far. Telling that everyone should easily see the evidence in a few time series is not even the first step in that direction.
Understanding the physics behind the observations is essential to me. In absence of that the statistical evidence must be very much stronger because the number of combinations to test is so large that it results easily to spurious conclusions. The standard statistical tests apply only when an uniquely fixed hypothesis is tested. As soon as there are many alternatives, the tests loose evidential power.
core-mantle model assumptions = false
you’re awfully quiet about that — why exactly?
physics here = dead simple
what’s missing in the discussion is due awareness of aggregation criteria fundamentals
I’m looking for something that’s even possible, and reject ideas that cannot be linked to a possible mechanism. Only powerful evidence wins over that obstacle, and I haven’t seen any powerful evidence for other mechanisms for the low frequency variability.
High frequency variability up to the length of ENSO cycles shows clear and very plausibly causal connections between climate and LOD, for lower frequencies that’s not true based an all that I have seen.
Conservation of angular momentum puts strong limits on the strength of direct long term connections between atmosphere and LOD. Indirect mechanisms are possible, but they must first be specified in some detail, when claims are made on their significance.
Pekka, you should really look carefully at the znxy.png image that Vaugan linked to. In particular, look at the chartreuse curve in comparison to the ice mass estimate curves. The majority of the undulations in the ice mass data match the undulations in the LOD data.
That I find highly fortuitous unless there is actually some underlying mechanism.
Vaughan is very hard to comprehend since he is so cryptic, but we are finally at the point where we kind of know what he is talking about.
This is the research that he is referencing, who see the same striking qualitative match:
http://syrte.obspm.fr/jsr/journees2008/pdf/Sidorenkov.pdf
yet they also say that:
That caveat is the one that has been raised in attributing water volume shifts to the LOD variations.
WHT,
Observing that the direct effect is too weak by a factor of 28 is certainly disturbing. If the effect would come through some intermediate mechanism, that should be presented better that the short 2008 paper of Sidorenko and Wilson does.
Another point is that I really unhappy with proposals that the motion of the Sun and the Earth around the barycentre of solar system would be behind the phenomena. Based on basic ideas of relativity the Sun and the Earth don’t react to that motion in any way. Gravity and acceleration work together in the way that the effects cancel totally out. What’s left are some higher order effects of the same nature that causes tides on the Earth, but the tidal effects of Saturn on the Sun are really minimal. The strongest effect is almost certainly in the effect on the Earth orbit. Jupiter distorts slightly the Earth orbit and Saturn makes that effect about 10% stronger when the planets are aligned compared to the situation where they are at 90 degrees from each other. This whole effect is very small as the gravitational pull of Jupiter is 1/2800 that of sun and the tidal effect a small fraction of that.
When a paper discusses the position of Sun relative to barycenter but does not discuss the actual physical effects that may be related to that, I loose trust in the paper.
In the short Sidorenkov Wilson paper, they note that the changes in the LOD precede those in the Pacific Decadal Oscillations by 8 years or 96 months. Using a lag filter on the CSALT model, I can maximise the correlation coefficient fit by choosing 92 months for a time constant.
They apparently find this invariant important as it is used to link LDO to PDO si
The question is:
Is that lagged correlation accidental or significant?
Based on what I have seen so far, my guess is that it’s accidental.
There are clearly several correlating indicators on those periods. Some of these phenomena are surely causally linked, but other pairs may correlate just by accident. Under such conditions new correlating pairs may be found without any additional value in proving that all these correlation have some causal connection.
Having two or three families with strong causal connections within each family, but only an accidental correlation between the families leads to such a situation. LOD and climatic indicators may belong two two such families, but there might also be an up to now unknown linking mechanism. The motion of the Sun relative to the barycenter is very unlikely to have any causal connection to either one. Of course I cannot exclude any connection with full certainty, I can only judge the power of the evidence, and consider it too weak.
I repeat: The small number of cycles means that the evidential power of a correlation is weak, and the likelihood that even a strong correlation is accidental is quite large.
What are they talking about, Pekka? Astrology?
Not quite astrology, but something that’s very unlikely to affect anything significantly.
The argument seems similar to that of Scafetta. When the position of the Sun relative to the barycenter is calculated some periodic results can be obtained. If the Sun and the Earth would really be affected by the motion relative to the barycenter, that might lead to something, but the Sun and the inner planets are in “free fall” in the space where the gravitational field is affected slightly by the outer planets. The value of the gravitational field itself and the acceleration of the inner solar system do not cause anything observable, only the gradient of the gravitational field has some influence. That influence is similar to the creation of tides. That effect falls more rapidly with distance than the gravitational force itself. It causes a tiny extra variability in the orbit of Earth, but that variability has adds a negligible amount to the other variability of TSI or any other influence of Sun on the Earth.
One curious fact is that a planet affects the position of the barycenter the more the further it is from the sun. Therefore Saturn has a rather large influence on that. As the distance makes all real influence smaller, we can see that looking at the position relative to the barycenter is a really stupid thing to do. Acceleration relative to the barycenter is also unobservable as that’s acceleration in free fall, which is not observable at all.
When people learn to understand that the gravitational effects are negligible, they sometimes start to propose effects due to magnetic fields of the planets. Such arguments do not appear any stronger that those related to gravity.
Pekka Pirilä,
I understand this argument, but the Sun does have to change direction to follow the baricenter, and some of the directions changes are quite severe for an object of the Sun’s mass, and maybe the Sun doesn’t act as a solid object as it changes direction.
You may be right, and I realize that is the position of science at this time, but I wonder if we’ve declared the issue dead too soon. Much like the consensus on CAGW.
Last years “noise” sometimes turns into next years great discovery.
If arguing gravity and magnetic fields don’t work for them, they can always fall back on postulating disturbances in the luminiferous aether. But I am sure you have anticipated that one too.
The 8 year links between LOD events and PDO shifts is documented back to 1700. I am not concerned about the potential solar link for a second. Something related to jerks in the earths angular momentum leads to subtle shifts in the oceans circulation and therefore subtle shifts in the earths climate. The Antarctic records of icepack show this connection as well.
What makes this interesting as well is that by monitoring LOD one can potentially anticipate a subtle shift in climate by 8 years.
Mi Cro,
I tried to explain that changing the direction of the motion is not observable either. That’s fundamental in the Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, but the same is true in all theories of gravity that are based only on the forces that the bodies have among themselves.
To have any effect from that acceleration we must have a theory where the empty space has a fixed coordinate system and we must consider, how the particles move relative to these fixed coordinates.
In the present understanding the barycenter is only a convenient point of reference calculated by people without any deeper influence on actual physics. Celestial bodies do not move relative to the barycenter, they move relative to each other being always in free fall and thus unaware of any acceleration relative to any point or coordinate system.
I know, and I have nothing to counter your science with.
But I also know we detect exoplanets by measuring how much their stars wiggle, and every object I’ve wiggled has inertia, but I can’t counter your statements with more than this.
Maybe we should be talking about gravity waves….
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/how_did_black_holes_grow_so_large_gravitational_waves_know-122891
The wave will be much smaller than from orbiting black holes, but that doesn’t mean they are not there.
WHT,
How many shifts have a unambiguous connection?
How accurately has the shift been the same every time?
You must be able to identify the answers from the data with a well defined procedure, not observe that you can make a fit, where you find the connection after the fit.
The analogy is that you are holding a bowl of soup while spinning around like a figure skater.
What happens to the soup when the rotation goes throughttransient accelerations or jerks?
At a minimum, the soup will slosh around a bit because it is more free to maintain its rotational inertia.
I really dont mind going to the fundamentals for understanding.
Pekka,
I’m hoping you can help me out a little. I don’t necessarily disagree with what you said much further up this thread that you suspect the effects of the GHG will outweigh the stadium effect and that warming will commence fairly soon due to the amount of influence it has now. I also read what you said about planetary cycles. You did mention the measurability and affect of TCI in cycles. I took this from wiki:
he total solar irradiance (TSI) is the amount of solar radiative energy incident on the Earth’s upper atmosphere. TSI variations were undetectable until satellite observations began in late 1978. Radiometers carried on satellites from the 1970s to the 2000s[10] has shown that solar irradiance varies systematically over the 11-year sunspot cycle, both in total irradiance and in the relative components of the irradiance (UV Light ratios to Visible Light Ratios). The solar luminosity is about 0.07 percent brighter during solar maximum than during solar minimum but observations from spacecraft in the 2000s showed that the ratio of ultraviolet to visible light is much more variable than previously thought.[11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle#cite_note-12
So my question is if there is variation in a Hale cycle isn’t it possible that there is variation on a much larger scale perhaps explaining Maunder Minimum and ice ages through time? I have been reading Timo Niroma and about Gleissberg and Wolf cycles. I know this is about sunspots but wouldn’t it make sense that there would be magnetic cycles of a larger degree that would cause warming and cooling? Also isn’t it possible that we are near another big cooling cycle?
Ordvic,
I don’t have much to say on what you ask. I try to observe situations, where I can comment based on my knowledge of physics. There are many issues where I consider that possible, but making guesses in, how much TSI may vary over longer intervals is not one of those. The magnetic phenomena related to Earth and Sun and their influence on climate is another question where my intuition does not provide clear answers.
What I know specifically about climate or atmosphere, I have learned over last two or three years, and much of that in an unsystematic fashion. By that I may have learned to understand some parts rather well but be totally ignorant on something else considered well understood by the specialists of that area.
Participating in discussion of technical threads like this one leads often to improved understanding. That’s true also in this case as reading several related papers has told both on conventional understanding about several issues and on some new ideas, some of which I have not found convincing.
Reading on new ideas we must remember what was discussed in another recent thread: Very many scientific papers are wrong, publishing also such papers is necessary for the progress of science, but we must remember that only well enough confirmed results are really part of best scientific understanding. (Publishing papers that are wrong due to sloppy research is detrimental, but somewhat speculative papers are often very valuable.)
Thanks,
Yes I’ve read a lot of things in orthodontics as I am a technician and have several patents I had to research and most of that literature is not scientific. I’ve been reading about solar but I find things that look dubious so I try to find other sources rather than wasting too much time. some examples:
http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm
http://journalofcosmology.com/ClimateChange111.html
The same reasoning that leads some people here to conclude that Earth rotates around the barycenter of the solar system obliges them to believe that the Moon also rotates about that barycenter.
The fact of the matter is that distance of a satellite (such as the Moon) from its parent (in this example the Earth) dominates considerations of barycenter of a much larger system.
Earth as a satellite of the Sun is much closer to its parent than is Jupiter. In consequence Jupiter plays a much smaller role in influencing Earth’s orbit than it does in influencing the solar system’s barycenter.
If the Moon example didn’t convince you, let’s see if a completely different way of looking at it reaches a similar conclusion. Suppose Earth describes a circular orbit around a point C somewhere on the line SJ between the Sun and Jupiter. In order for Earth to experience the same force towards C when Jupiter is in opposition (i.e. Earth is between the Sun and Jupiter) and in conjunction (the Sun is between Earth and Jupiter), the Sun needs to be between C and Jupiter. This is because when Jupiter is in opposition it is pulling Earth away from the Sun, whereas in conjunction it is pulling it towards the Sun. Hence in the former case Earth needs to be closer to the Sun to overcome Jupiter’s attraction, while in the latter it needs to be further from the Sun because Jupiter is now pulling Earth towards the Sun.
But the barycenter B of the Sun-Jupiter system is between the Sun and Jupiter. Hence the Sun is between B and C.
A little more calculation shows that C is about 300 times closer to the center of the Sun than B.
Jupiter does not disturb Earth’s rotation about the Sun any more than does the Sun disturb the Moon’s rotation about Earth, at least qualitatively. The influence of the distant large object is miniscule compared to that of the parent.
And yet there is enough wobble to detect exoplanets 10’s to 100’s of light years away.
Can’t prove anything, all you can do is make connections. Figure 3 in the SIDORENKOV paper shows 8 LOD shifts that lead a paleo PDO max by 7 to 8 years and one PDO max that has a very weak LOD shift. The authors claim that the shift is 8 years and you can see how they shifted the axis in Figure 3 to make that more apparent.
The shift is one thing, the amplitude response is another issue. It is perhaps understandable that a LOD shift would not always generate the same response amplitude. If it has to do with circulation of an oscillating basin, the inertial response to an LOD event would be sensitive to the phase of that flow and whether it would reinforce or try to reverse that flow.
Forget for the moment what causes the LOD shifts. The LOD variability is there and it looks like it has a causal effect on the PDO index, which impacts the SST temperatures to about a +/- 0.1C fluctuating level.
Where are all the chaos proponents? If all we need to do is watch for LOD shfts, we can begin to predict a peak in the PDO 8 years in advance. That would be very interesting in terms of decadal climate predictions.
I do wonder why this topic isn’t getting more publicity.
Got to the link below and pick the radio button to display the fluctuation components
http://entroplet.com/context_salt_model/navigate
You can see how big the LOD contribution is and how it contributes — along with the coincidental phasing of SOI, TSI, etc — a pause in warming over the years.
Webster, “Where are all the chaos proponents? If all we need to do is watch for LOD shfts, we can begin to predict a peak in the PDO 8 years in advance. That would be very interesting in terms of decadal climate predictions.”
Right up to decadal predictions as an index. Climate requires knowing the cause of the fluctuations in the index. The Stadium Wave is a step in that direction.
@Mi Cro: And yet there is enough wobble to detect exoplanets 10′s to 100′s of light years away.
Quite right. This is equally true of the star that is 8 light minutes away. Thanks to the larger planets our Sun wobbles too. Earth orbits around the wobbling Sun itself, not around the barycenter of the solar system, and therefore inherits the Sun’s wobble. Likewise the Moon orbits around Earth and inherits Earth’s orbital motion around the Sun, itself a wobble but of course far larger than the Sun’s wobble.
Unlike Earth, which orbits about the Sun itself, Pluto orbits about the barycenter (center of gravity) of the solar system (albeit very eccentrically—the barycenter is at one focus of Pluto’s elliptical orbit).
The principle here is related to the fact that objects outside or on a hollow shell of mass M experience its gravity as being that of a point of mass M at the center of the shell, whereas objects strictly inside that shell experience zero gravitational attraction from the shell. This fact makes it easy to see that the gravitational force acting on a point at depth d below Earth’s surface equals that due to the spherical part of Earth of radius R − d where R is Earth’s radius. The parts of Earth at depth less than d cancel each other out and therefore have no gravitational influence at depth d.
Planets much further out from the Sun than Jupiter orbit around the common center of gravity of the Sun and Jupiter (and the other large planets if further out than them also). Those much closer to the Sun than Jupiter orbit around the Sun itself.
The difference from a spherical shell is that bodies in an orbit that carries them at all near Jupiter are strongly attracted to Jupiter as they pass by. For them Jupiter is effectively a point mass rather than a shell of radius the distance from the Sun to Jupiter. Passing bodies therefore have a more chaotic orbit: they may crash into Jupiter, or be flung off in a very different direction bearing little relation to their approach.
@PV: physics here = dead simple
Anyone who believes this is likely to reason incorrectly about exchanges of angular momentum and rotational energy between the atmosphere, lithosphere, asthenosphere, outer core, and inner core. This is not a simple system, particularly when some of these energy exchanges are almost certainly being stored temporarily as potential energy.
WHT,
The Figure 3 does not represent strong agreement. Accidental agreement at the level of that Figure is pretty common in particular when a time shift is allowed.
It took me some time to understand what the lower part of that figure shows as it looks very different from the LOD data itself. It’s stated in the text, but understanding that the absolute deviation of the Earth’s LOD from its long–term trend refers to the absolute value of the deviation from a linear trend fit, whatever the sign of the deviation. That way they double the number of maximums and hide the difference between minimums and maximums. This kind of tricks makes the significance of the agreement even more suspect.
The longer 2005 paper of Sidorenkov Physics of the Earth’s rotation instabilities seems to contain a rather good summary of much material related to LOD and related observations. The original LOD data since 1660 is also shown in that paper.
egregious misrepresentation of the simple physics — distortion artistry on overload in this discussion tree — EVERYONE: STOP PUTTING FALSE WORDS IN MY MOUTH = SOCIAL INJUSTICE
You people haven’t understood Jean Dickey’s work well enough to discuss this sensibly = not helpful
As a point of clarification, when I wrote
Suppose Earth describes a circular orbit around a point C somewhere on the line SJ between the Sun and Jupiter
in my argument against Earth orbiting around the solar system’s barycenter, I should have prefaced it with “For a contradiction….”. I didn’t mean to imply that the center of Earth’s orbit would actually be at this fictitious point C but only that it would be if Earth’s orbit were circular.
Those arguing that Earth should be orbiting about the solar system’s barycenter seem to be assuming that a (more or less) circular orbit about the barycenter should be possible. The point of my argument was to show that if that were true then the center of this circular orbit would have to be on the opposite side of the Sun from the barycenter.
What actually happens may well be quite another thing. With two bodies, elliptical orbits obtain. With three bodies things can get quite chaotic.
more obfuscation — strategy seems to be to deliberately conflate the clear with the muddy — i.e. a smear campaign
Pekka, your severe misrepresentation of Jean Dickey’s luminary exploratory research is reprehensible.
I wish to have no further contact with you. Do not address me again.
The research is interesting but the fact remains that
(1) terms due to PDO as linked to LOD changes will never add more than +/- 0.1C to the global temperature record
(2) the temperature impact will be less than this on land, likely less than 1/2.
As the temperature anomaly on land is past 1.2C already, one can see the LOD useful only to remove uncertainty like I do here with the CSALT exploratory tool:
http://entroplet.com/context_salt_model/navigate
WebHubTelescope,
I wonder if you could be so kind as to not state your assumptions about the future as “facts”.
You may cause unnecessary fright to horses and small children.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
WHT you must be assuming I’m thinking something I’m not thinking — not helpful
Devilish misrepresentation of the simple physics is permanently stalling this discussion. Time to walk away from this discussion again…
The simple fact remains that little resembling dynamical physics is found either in the paper or in the ensuing discussion. It’s largely about making hand-waving conceptual connections between index-numbers that are not bona fide measurements.
Climatology attractor (average annual cycle) map animations:
1. sun, temperature, & wind
visualizing & understanding terrestrial 200hPa semiannual midlatitude westerly winds = westerlies = mean terrestrial jet streams
2. sun, temperature, wind, & ozone
equator-pole insolation & temperatue gradients, semiannual midlatitude westerly winds = westerlies = mean jet streams, & ozone
3. pressure, wind, waves, & gyres
visualizing & understanding coherence of terrestrial surface pressure, wind, waves, & currents (ocean gyres)
4. water = hydrology
multivariate hydrology in the context of sunlight, temperature, pressure, wind, & welling
5. cloud cover
low, mid level, high, & total cloud cover
_____
Credits:
A. The wave height animation was assembled using Australian Department of Defence images developed from GlobWave Project data.
B. All other animations were assembled using JRA-25 Atlas images.
JRA reanalysis is crap when it comes to 2 meter temps.
Surely you’re not suggesting gross errors in the patterns of monthly 25-year-averages??? (What fabulous judgement that would show!!) Compare with NCEP/NCAR:
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/classes/mt404-xw/Lectures/Animations/tmp2m_web.gif
Same global-scale patterns — key thing to note is patterns of equator-pole & land-ocean gradients, notably steep northern hemisphere winter western ocean boundary / eastern continent gradients — same large-scale annual cycle pattern on both animations. Don’t waste peoples’ time distorting with administrative minutia.
All of these indices are based on real measurements. The dynamical implication is that the global system is indeed a global dynamical system.
Simple Physics
The year is the main thing going on physically.
Multidecadally, subtle departures from climatology are governed by spatiotemporal solar pulsing & persistence of terrestrial mass & circulatory geometry. We know this from careful interpretation of rigidly-constrained earth orientation parameters.
(No uncertainty here folks — sorry to burst your naive narrative but these observations are rigidly constrained by the laws of conservation of angular momentum & large numbers and if you hope to appear sensible rather than politically spun you don’t want to get caught arguing violations of these.)
If people would pay attention and use quantitative methods that aren’t scrambled by ENSO, they would see within a few minutes that:
a) temperature, mass, velocity, & chemistry are coupled.
b) in cross-ENSO aggregate, mass & circulatory configuration pulses with solar-modulated latitudinal insolation gradients.
c) persistence of those equator-pole gradients spatiotemporally integrates heat.
It’s very important to note that it’s a persistence in space, not just in time. The rate of twist on the solar-terrestrial-climate weave is governed by changing solar cycle length. (It literally can’t be otherwise.) It’s time to recognize that this is a geometric proof, rigidly constrained by laws.
physics = dead simple
It’s just the year with a little boost from changing mass distribution & flow geometry due to solar-modulated latitudinal insolation gradients.
(Those of you still misleadingly pushing TSI / global average temperature regressions: You’re making false assumptions and your residuals do not pass careful diagnostics. Everyone else take note that the old mainstream TSI narrative pushes a die-hard myth that fails careful diagnostics that trace the politically-motivated spin back to conveniently-false assumptions about geometry.)
Some will ask, “What about lunisolar?” The lunisolar role is to spatiotemporally scramble. (You could call this “internal” to the Earth-Moon system.) We know this from the cross-ENSO interhemispheric signature in annual earth rotation. In layman’s terms: Lunisolar can steer, but it can’t drive.
The sun is external to Earth, so solar governance of the MD wave is external. Trying to call it “internal” is misleading. It’s particularly misleading in communications with the general public.
The traditional conceptual frameworks have fundamental flaws. A serious overhaul is needed, with an audited emphasis on avoiding misnomers that deliberately mislead the general public for political purposes.
Due to the political charge on the climate discussion, a due paradigm overhaul will protract for more than a decade (possibly multiple decades). In the meantime, the sensible option is to say “natural” instead of “internal”, since “natural” is true while “internal” is strictly not.
With the help of Sergei Kravtsov, Marcia Wyatt was able to concisely summarize a multivariate snapshot of the MD wave, but she was unable to understand from carefully interpreted summaries of earth rotation and global atmospheric angular momentum records the nature of the solar governance.
Judy Curry deserves credit for (a) recognizing a bandwagon worth jumping on and (b) helping out by attracting funding and orders of magnitude more attention (via her sociopolitically stronger, longer reach).
The lesson that comes out of all of this is one for fatally failing western math education systems: You need to do a much better job preparing citizens to be independently functionally numerate.
In the example here, failure — via undiagnosed statistical paradox — to properly resolve the hierarchical scale of constraints led to protracted conflict about imagined “mysterious physics” where lack of basic attention to aggregation criteria fundamentals was at the root of the protracted conflict all along.
Both sides in the conflict failed to recognize the root cause, which is why the conflicts turbulently escalated to the level of deep social intractability, which frankly is a dangerous state in which to leave a conflict hanging for an extended period of time.
Both sides knew there was something the other side wasn’t seeing. They were both right about this. What they didn’t realize is that they were both overlooking the same thing.
“Scrambled by ENSO” would be an accurate title for a book about the solar-climate discussion.
John S.: Don’t try my patience on this. I’m ready to write you off in my next breath as an unfair &/or incompetent solar-terrestrial-climate judge just like the others if you insist on fatally corrupted, devilishly misleading interpretations stemming from methods that are left (conveniently for politically motivated parties) scrambled by ENSO.
I do not want green eggs damped or scrambled. A tip of a woven hat to you, which I’ll eat if you’re right.
=========
Paul Vaughan,
I think this guy agrees with you:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682608003787
Knitting up the ravelled sleeve of climate.
================
Paul,
You go to great pains to present animated charts of monthly climatological summaries of many variables for the last few decades, as if they are a great revelation. The great zonal extent of isolines and the seasonally shifting meridional gradients are well known even to geophysics undergraduates. And you insist upon the centrality of the annual cycle. This has little to do with the climatic issue at hand, which pertains to the drivers of spatio-temporal multi-decadal temperature variations that remain after the annual cycle has been suppressed.
FYI, those variations are far more proportionately powerful in many other regions than in the Siberian Arctic, whose broad-band high-frequency variations show more than twice its multi-decadal spectral power. And, as noted in my follow up to Dan’s comment, many high-latitude station records are inconsistent with any thermal “wave” PROPAGATING from that putative–and very cold–source. Much as I would welcome a cogent explanation for the widespread, but only spottily coherent, multi-decadal variations, Wyatt’s “stadium wave” conjecture doesn’t provide such. Nor do any of the correlations with LOD, which may be an indicator of miniscule climate-induced shifts in planetary angular momentum, but almost certainly not its driver. Thermodynamics in a geophysical setting doesn’t reduce to simple, geometric physics, as you would have it.
As far as your losing patience with me goes, I’ll only worry if my clients start taking notice of your purely phenomenological (and often inchoate) surmises, made more with personal innuendo here than with any thoroughgoing physical analysis.
John, your response is based on misunderstandings &/or misrepresentations. This is not helpful.
The working theory is that chaotic multi-body orbits cause shifts in solar activity that express in roughly periodic regimes. These changes in activity propagate and magnify through the climate system.
The specific linkages seem likely to include UV variability driving sea level pressure and modulating Pacific Ocean states.
Like this?
http://skydogs.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/motion-of-barycenter-of-the-solar-system-relative-to-the-sun.jpg?w=584
Yes – classic and chaotic n-body behaviour.
With very little influence on the Sun, the Earth, or any other planet as discussed higher up in this thread.
The effect is so dramatic only in drawings calculated by humans, not at all in the natural world.
‘During the descent into the recent ‘exceptionally’ low solar minimum, observations have revealed a larger change in solar UV emissions than seen at the same phase of previous solar cycles. This is particularly true at wavelengths responsible for stratospheric ozone production and heating. This implies that ‘top-down’ solar modulation could be a larger factor in long-term tropospheric change than previously believed, many climate models allowing only for the ‘bottom-up’ effect of the less-variable visible and infrared solar emissions. We present evidence for long-term drift in solar UV irradiance, which is not found in its commonly used proxies. In addition, we find that both stratospheric and tropospheric winds and temperatures show stronger regional variations with those solar indices that do show long-term trends. A top-down climate effect that shows long-term drift (and may also be out of phase with the bottom-up solar forcing) would change the spatial response patterns and would mean that climate-chemistry models that have sufficient resolution in the stratosphere would become very important for making accurate regional/seasonal climate predictions. Our results also provide a potential explanation of persistent palaeoclimate results showing solar influence on regional or local climate indicators.’ http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/3/034008
My interest is to understand reasons for variability in ocean and atmosphere circulation that are the proximate cause of most climate variation over the Holocene at least. One of these seems to be UV modulating sea level pressure differences between the poles and sub-polar regions – driving more or less cold water into the north and south Pacific gyres.
The eccentric barycentre argument is an attempt to explain UV drift as a solar-magneto effect modulated by chaotic n-body orbits.
I deliberately stayed out of much of this discussion. The stadium wave is of immense significance – although as with the best science it describes what is abundantly obvious after the fact. The climate system is a dynamic system that is global and indivisible.
‘Climate is ultimately complex. Complexity begs for reductionism. With reductionism, a puzzle is studied by way of its pieces. While this approach illuminates the climate system’s components, climate’s full picture remains elusive. Understanding the pieces does not ensure understanding the collection of pieces. This conundrum motivates our study.’ “Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and Northern Hemisphere’s Climate Variability” (2011), Marcia Glaze Wyatt, Sergey Kravtsov, and Anastasios A. Tsonis
The theory of climate shifts suggests that there are control variables and multiple positive and negative feedbacks in a complex dynamical system. So if have a better idea for control variables than orbital modulation of the solar magneto and therefore solar activity – Pekka – by all means elucidate. If not I will stick to my ‘working theory’.
Solar variability is controlled by the internal dynamo which is a non-linear system. We develop a physical–statistical method for forecasting solar activity that takes into account the non-linear character of the solar dynamo. The method is based on the generally accepted mechanisms of the dynamo and on recently found systematic properties of the long-term solar variability. http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/2009-forecasting-jastp-71-239.pdf
H/T – ordvic
I would find it most surprising if the nonlinear evolution of the solar magneto was not related to n-body orbital chaos.
Chief,
Higher up in this thread I commented on the same point. Vaughan Pratt expanded on that in a way that I agree largely with, although I think that some of his statements were not strictly correct, and therefore perhaps misleading.
The main point is that all stars and planets are in free fall in the space. They don’t feel the gravity of other bodies as their acceleration cancels it exactly. Only inhomogenities of the gravitational force are felt if they are so strong that the gravity differs within the dimensions of the body. The inhomogenities cause the tides on the Earth.
The barycenter is not an observable point (only calculable). Movements with respect to barycenter are not observable. The distance from the barycenter tells almost nothing about the inhomogenities. Nothing in the Sun reacts to the distance from barycenter. Saturn has a large effect on the barycenter because it is so far. For the same reason it has extremely little effect on the Sun or on the inner planets, including the Earth.
Jupiter has a small effect on the Earth orbit as it makes the eccentricity vary a little, but the orbit of the Earth remains nearly elliptical relative to the Sun. The movement of the Earth relative to the barycenter is not as regular. Saturn has really little effect on the distance between the Sun and the Earth, much less than it has on the barycenter.
The basic concept employed is that of kinematic approximation.. In this approach the effect of the field on the plasma is at first ignored, but the distortion of the field by the plasma is calculated. When the field has been sufficiently amplified by the fluid motion we then consider what effect it has on the motion of the plasma. This is a valid approach for the Sun because measurements of the field and the fluid motions show that in the early stages of the solar cycle the energy in the field is weak compared with in the fluid motions.
The normal ideas of dynamo theory apply, in which a basically dipolar field is distorted, by differential rotation, into a field with a substantial toroidal component which becomes more noticeable near the equator. Small-scale cyclonic motions twist loops into this field, and the loops combine to produce the new dipole field. We suggest that near the poles, sometime between solar maxima and minima, the small-scale cyclonic motions near the poles are reversed, thus eventually giving rise to a field of opposite polarity. This reversal is caused by the movement of the Sun about the common center of mass of the whole Solar System. The principle evidence to support this proposal is that of Jose (1965). http://tmgnow.com/repository/solar/percyseymour2.html
I have not followed this thread – and will not be reviewing it. Most of it from what I have read simply misunderstands the significance of the stadium wave – along with long winded discussions of LOD which in itself is a function of a transfer of momentum between the oceans and atmosphere. LOD is not fundamental – the changes in winds and currents are.
The ‘working theory’ attempts to find mechanisms for the evolution of solar variability through n-body orbital influences on solar activity. It provides a physical basis for very old ideas of links between the orbits of the large outer planets and rainfall for instance – as well as modern correlations of Nicolas Scaffetta. Evolving ideas suggest solar amplification in the climate system through ocean and atmospheric circulations.
I am not entirely clear as to your meaning. Surely you understand that the Sun rotates around the centre of solar system mass that is within the Sun itself?
Again – I suggested that if you have a better theory – then by all means.
Chief:
You’ve given me a lot to think about. Why wouldn’t the Sun be Chaotic?
@PP: Jupiter has a small effect on the Earth orbit as it makes the eccentricity vary a little, but the orbit of the Earth remains nearly elliptical relative to the Sun. The movement of the Earth relative to the barycenter is not as regular. Saturn has really little effect on the distance between the Sun and the Earth, much less than it has on the barycenter.
Exactly so. Jupiter and Venus are the only planets that significantly perturb Earth’s (slightly elliptical) orbit, with the effect of Jupiter being about twice that of Venus. This can be verified with ephemerides vector data downloadable from JPL’s very handy HORIZONS web-interface.
Correct, but only regarding the gravitation force. If you consider the other electuary forces (electro-magnetic) then the situation is not so clear cut:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SC17.htm
Chief Hydrologist:
LOD is not fundamental – the changes in winds and currents are.
Hi chief
Agree, LOD is a consequence not the cause.
Here is an illustration of short/long term factors affecting LOD.
I would suggest that the most contributing factor is the interior electromagnetic coupling. Intriguing thing is that the 20% of the LOD’s decadal variability is strongly correlated to sunspot magnetic cycle, which may not be cause but another parallel and event
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-LOD.htm
LOD variability causes link:
http://op.gfz-potsdam.de/champ/media_CHAMP/luehr_2_geodyn.gif
Vukcevic,
Can you point to a calculation of the forces caused by the variations in magnetic fields that you discuss?
Vukcevic,
I guess you haven’t or if you have, you prefer to forget the result.
The forces and potential energies related to the interaction of magnetic moments of any of the pairs Sun-Earth, Sun-Jupiter, Jupiter-Earth are really, really tiny, not only relative to the sizes of the planets, but on any scale. Magnetic forces fall so rapidly with distance and are not that large to begin with.
You cannot find anything significant from this approach, it’s even more hopeless than the ideas related to gravitational effects.
The numbers that I used in writing the above comment were not correct. (I used Excel and got one reference from a sheet to another wrong in a way I have never seen before. As the result seemed to be too small, I checked again, and found the error.)
The new numbers are more reasonable. I have to look again, what I think about their size.
Well, you can do calculations if you are so inclined
Two hour medium size geomagnetic storm releases 5 x 10E14 Joules via electromagnetic induction into the lithosphere of Arctic circle, and presumably similar amount into the Antarctic one. Some of the storms last 6-8 hours (night time) and go on for a number of days.
Here you can see frequency of the events:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Tromso.htm
An average storm moves Earth’s field by about 0.5-1%, you could calculate energy required to produce the global field of about 58-60 microTesla and then work from there.
The graph http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Tromso.htm
is based on data used by JPL-NASA.
Is geomagnetic induction acting as an electro-magnetic brake on the Earth’s rotation or it is a parallel process, it is difficult to ascertain, even if the forces calculated are of required order of magnitude.
It should be noted what the NASA claims:
” Solar coronal mass ejections CMEs in the even-numbered solar cycles tend to hit Earth with a leading edge that is magnetized north. Such CMEs open a breach and load the magnetosphere with plasma starting a geomagnetic storm .
If the gm storms are affecting the LOD than the rotation would slow down at the time of even-numbered solar cycles which concurs with above SSN-LOD graph.
The second link should be
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-LOD.htm
you are working with the ‘static’ magnetic field, this is not what I am writing about, it is direct electro and magnetic loop linking sun with planetary magnetospheres
http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/IASTP/66/fig2.gif
Vukcevic,
What’s significant depends on the quantitative factors.
Plasma ejected by the Sun can cause a geomagnetic storm, but can it carry angular momentum that could affect at a noticeable level the LOD is a completely different thing. How could it do that? After all the angular momentum must be conserved also in these processes. Thus only something with a sufficient momentum of inertia can affect angular momentum of the Earth.
To get some idea of the relative sizes of the effects i calculated maximal dipole-dipole forces based on the dipole moments and distance. For the Sun that force is 1/10,000,000 times that of gravitational force. A similar force from Jupiter is weaker by a factor of 100,000, Saturn still weaker by 1000. I agree that these numbers are not a correct measure, but even so they tell that any effect on the Sun or the Earth is very small, and that Saturn, in particular, is already so distant that neither its mass nor its magnetic fields can have much influence on anything in the Sun or for the Earth.
Playing with fits is only that as long as no plausible mechanisms can be indicated. As has been noticed so often, the number of different time series is large enough to produce innumerable spurious agreements.
Vuk,
Your pictures are meaningless until you put justified numbers in them in a way that tells that a real effect is even remotely plausible. Based on everything I have seen, it’s unlikely that you can find anything that’s closer than a factor of millions too weak for being significant. If you want to discuss Saturn, that factor could probably be raised to one billion.
If you disagree, you must show that with quantitative calculations. Without that it’s just empty and meaningless fitting.
@PP: Thus only something with a sufficient momentum of inertia can affect angular momentum of the Earth.
An object does not even need to be rotating in order for a significant fraction of its linear momentum to be converted to angular momentum. Hence its moment of inertia is immaterial. A 1 cc neutron star striking Earth a glancing blow at the equator has negligible moment of inertia for its mass yet can add significantly to Earth’s angular momentum.
Vaughan,
In writing my comment I had in mind interaction trough magnetic fields and moment of inertia with respect to the Earth axis of rotation.
Can the magnetic fields carried by the plasma of solar wind exert such a torque on the Earth that the Earth angular momentum is changed significantly? Sidorenkov (Physics of the Earth’s rotation instabilities, 2005) writes:
He seems to believe also that there’s no identifiable contribution related to the solar activity in the observed variations of LOD as the above quote is the only reference on mechanisms in any way connected to the solar cycles.
For our earlier discussion the most significant observation is that the magnetic fields of outer planets cannot penetrate to inner solar system due to the influence of solar wind.
(I misplaced my first response to Vukcevic in a wrong sub-thread and that seems to have caused some confusion in my exchange with him. My purpose was to respond to his comment of October 29, 2013 at 7:29 am one step higher in this thread.)
Pekka,
1)I wonder if anyone has put together a time and date list of X class flares noting with ones were Earth facing.
2)Compared it to Climate/Weather/LOD?
@PP: [Sidorenkov] seems to believe also that there’s no identifiable contribution related to the solar activity in the observed variations of LOD as the above quote is the only reference on mechanisms in any way connected to the solar cycles.
This agrees fully with my intuition, Pekka. I wasn’t complaining about your conclusion, only your reasoning leading up to it (“Thus only something with a sufficient momentum of inertia can affect angular momentum of the Earth.”) That’s what you get when Climate Etc. allows logicians like me to bang on about physics. Just because a theorem is true doesn’t mean that any old proof of it will do.
Last year (2012) I thought through the various mechanisms that could give rise to the ocean oscillations and, on quantitative grounds similar to those argued by Sidorenkov and others, rejected all but those involving transfers of angular momentum between Earth’s core and the rest. In the rightmost column of my December AGU Fall Meeting poster I wrote:
We conjecture that [the sawtooth model of ocean oscillations] results from seismic events where the inviscid mantle becomes more viscous, due to decreasing temperature above and increasing pressure below. Rotation of the Earth’s core relative to the crust can be expected to generate such events above and/or below the mantle. Each such event would temporarily redistribute heat so that the bottom of the crust would experience a sudden temperature increase followed by a slow return to equilibrium, a sawtooth. Thermal and mechanical effects would attenuate respectively low and high harmonics.
This part of my poster was largely overlooked in the long-running (two months, 2,428 comments, a CE record?) commentary on my post to CE advertising the poster. The part of that commentary most relevant to the above can be seen starting here along with the four following replies ending with kim’s. There I explained how the Moon caused the crust to slow more than the core, with the friction between the two contributing additional heat to the mantle besides that from radioactive decay.
To date I haven’t seen any accounts of the relation between ocean oscillations and rotation of the Earth for which the numbers add up other than those involving said friction. The forces in all other mechanisms are too weak, including those in the stadium wave hypothesis.
Pekka Pirilä
You are obviously on a different ‘wavelength’, It is the electromagnetic coupling, not the static forces you insist on invoking. Perhaps you should read up on the solar and interplanetary electromagnetic events. An average CME carries electric current in excess of one billion Amps, the Arctic circle’s constant input is of order of one million Amps.
Weather you and I agree or disagree it is totally irrelevant, it is not a matter of the opinion, it is fact that the data from Jault Gire and LeMouel (1990) and later reinforced by Bloxham & Jackson (1992) show that 20% of the Earth’s LOD variability is closely correlated to the sunspot magnetic cycle.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-LOD.htm
the angular momentum is compensated by the inner-outer core differential rotation; this is then reflected in the decadal variability of the core’s magnetic field output, providing the data used in the above link.
Pekka Pirilä, it appears you are commenting on something you have a limited amount of knowledge. Have a nice day.
Vuk,
I should thank you for making me learn again something that I didn’t know. Not that I would agree more with you now when I know more.
I have understood that the static forces are not the issue. Therefore I wrote that the calculation I did is not the most representative.
As the polarity of the solar magnetic dipole reverses at every solar maximum, the first idea to come in mind is that LOD would follow a approx 22 year period. Your figure tells that that’s, indeed, true for the geomagnetic data. It’s, however not true for the actual LOD, as measurements show. Thus the geomagnetic signal that you present does not tell what the real LOD is.
Without the plasma of the solar wind the situation would be rather simple. The solar magnetic field at the Earth orbit would vary with an approximate period of 22 years. That would mean that the energy of the interaction of the magnetic dipoles of the Sun and the Earth would switch sign every 11 years. That would lead to an alternating slowing down and speeding up effect on the Earth rotation. The situation is, however, not that simple as the plasma makes the interplanetary magnetic field behave very differently.
The effects are controlled by the outwards moving plasma. The plasma makes it impossible for the magnetic fields of outer planets to penetrate inner solar system. The Sun affects the Earth also through magnetic fields, but Jupiter and Saturn magnetic fields do not affect the Sun or the Earth. Not even to the extent I thought before learning some more again.
Well, you are again off ‘wavelength again’, it is not polar field which is very weak anyway, it is sunspot magnetic polarity which determines difference in interaction with the Earth’s magnetosphere in the even and the odd cycles (see Nasa’s quote in my post above). Read US navy intro on solar magnetic loops http://wwwppd.nrl.navy.mil/prediction/storms.html since you are still talking out of context.
Let me say again 20% of the LOD’s decadal variability is strongly correlated to the sunspot magnetic cycle
This is based on the LOD data widely used by the NASA-JPL and Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris.
Pekka Pirilä, you need to know a little bit more about the subject before you can make valid critique, so I shall terminate my further contribution, you may wish to concentrate your effort on commenting in your field of expertise.
I have read several other papers that discuss the variability of LOD. They don’t mention solar cycles in any form. Neither can I observe any strong correlation in the data. I cannot access at the moment the papers you gave links to although I can access more recent paper from same Journals.
Whatever the contribution of solar variability to LOD is, it does not change the fact that outer planets cannot affect the inner solar system trough magnetic fields because the plasma of the solar wind makes the magnetic effects unidirectional.
1. You need to read more carefully what I wrote. I did not state that there is an implicit link, but posited that it may be as an alternative to a possible parallel event.
2. No, you will not find it, since it is my ‘discovery’ in the data mentioned. Sometime I might publish my article with analysis:
Abstract
Changes in the length of day (LOD) have number of causes, some more certain than others. Number of researchers have investigated relationship between LOD and the climate change. Attempts to correlate the LOD to solar activity up to date are without a recognised result. In this article the author demonstrates existence of a possible coincidental or causal correlation between the solar magnetic oscillations and the secular LOD change of order of one millisecond peak to peak, out of the total 4-5 milliseconds deviation since 1880.
3. Your last comment is irrelevant to the LOD discusion
4. From your past comments on this blog I conclude you a Helsinki resident.
Helsinki has one of the world oldest geomagnetic stations established on 28th March 1838 by imperial decree of Czar Nicholas I, only 5 years after Gauss invented magnetometer in 1833.
Vukcevic,
As long as you publish your own research or explain it in a way that allows judging its merits I choose to put more trust in what those scientists write who have studied these issues for long and published their work for scrutiny.
As far as can see my last point is exactly the one on which you wrote your first comment in this thread. That’s the point Vaughan Pratt and I have been commenting on. You wrote:
My last argument tells that this comment is not justified.
@vukcevic: An average CME carries electric current in excess of one billion Amps, the Arctic circle’s constant input is of order of one million Amps.
How is that relevant? You need resistance (0.01 to 0.1 ohms) and duration (a billion amps won’t last long) in order to convert that to joules.
Hi Dr. Pratt
Just noticed your comment.
There is electromagnetic induction into conductive parts of lithosphere and further inwards up to several hundred km.
LOD is affected by multiplicity of factors, one being the electromagnetic coupling between different layers of the Earth’s interior as clearly indicated here:
http://op.gfz-potsdam.de/champ/media_CHAMP/luehr_2_geodyn.gif
Alternatively: possibility of the solar magnetic cycle polarity change and the electromagnetic coupling within the Earth’s interior as reflected in the geomagnetic data and ultimately in the LOD change, are of the common origin.
The main part of the decadal variations in the Earth’s rotation parameters (ERP) could not be explained by surface processes like atmospheric and oceanic excitation.
………….
Either the conservation of angular momentum in a combined system is considered or the acting coupling torques between individual sub-systems are determined, like electromagnetic (my bold) or topographic coupling torques between the fluid outer core and the mantle.
http://www.gfz-potsdam.de
1. My ‘discovery’ is an extension on the work by Jault Gire, LeMouel, Jackson and Bloxham, and paralleled to work by Hide, Boggs, Dickey and Hulot.
2. Nope.
I addressed Chief Hydrologist: http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/10/the-stadium-wave/#comment-405634
quoting the link http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-LOD.htm
Immediately after you addressed me with your comment
http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/10/the-stadium-wave/#comment-405636
You appear to have an excess of free time, or think that what I presented (if true) may undermine some of the current dogma about the sun- Earth ‘non-variability’.
Anyway it was fun countering your half-baked critique.
One problem related to threading of these discussions is that it’s often impossible to connect correctly short responses to earlier discussion. Their meaning may change essentially from that.
Having retired a couple of years ago, I have often free time, and seldom really binding duties. Participation in discussion gives links to new knowledge and motivates in search for even more. That’s true both when I tend to agree with the comments and when I disagree.
Marcia and Dr. C y’all might find this interesting. I am putting together ocean basin data to better illustrated the complex interactions on longer time scales.
By using a “present” baseline and 11 year trailing smoothing the somewhat random walk of the basins and 0-700 meter vertical temperature anomaly with the various basin lags.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-7qLULzENGsY/UnjzGi33VkI/AAAAAAAAKas/jmdTYzEKpis/w881-h503-no/Ocean+basin+SST+and+VTA.png
Pretty much anything “projected” should have a similar “walk” Then using basin volume instead of surface area the “Global” mean takes on a more energy considerate “look”.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-LQyM4O6bN34/Unj8p5vLYhI/AAAAAAAAKbA/rY1E3IHliWA/w797-h505-no/Global+volume+based+ocean+anomaly.png
It is pretty interesting, at least to me :)
Pingback: “Pause” May Last For Another 20 Years » Pirate's Cove
Pingback: "Stadium Wave" Phenomenon Defeats Climate-changers' Claims » Light from the Right
Pingback: Globaalse soojenemise paus võib kesta veel järgnevad 20 aastat. Põhja-Jäämeri on hakanud juba taastuma. | Hingepeegel
Pingback: Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 1 - Page 20 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Pingback: The 2.8% effect | Climate Etc.
I disagree that the stadium wave can explain the current cessation of warming, aka “hiatus” in IPCC jargon. We are told that:
“One of the most controversial issues emerging from ….the IPCC-AR5 … is the failure of global climate models to predict a hiatus in warming of global surface temperatures since 1998. Several ideas have been put forward to explain this hiatus,”
None of the ideas I have seen come close to the truth. The truth is very simple: There is no warming now despite the fact that there is more carbon dioxide in the air than ever before, and this has lasted for 15 years. Hence, greenhouse warming does not exist because the predictions of this theory are proven wrong by observation. There is no greenhouse warming now – that is an observed fact – but I will go further and make it clear that there is no trace of any greenhouse warming in history. But first, I want you to know that this “hiatus” is not the only one that exists. There was an 18 year cessation of warming in the eighties and nineties that was covered up by a fake global warming in official temperature curves. The satellites do not see this warming but Hansen had a personal interest in it because the peak warming he showed to the Senate in 1988 falls in the middle of it. The warming is called “late twentieth century warming” and nobody could find a natural cause for it. And this observation was used to claim that global warming was man-made. Man-made all right, in the back rooms of temperature guardians. I spotted this while doing research for my book “What Warming?” [1] and even put a warning to look out for it in the preface of the book. Nothing happened for two years after the book came out but then, suddenly last fall, the big three of temperature, GISTEMP, HadCRUT, and NCDC, decided, in unison, to not show this fake warming any more. What they did was to align their data for this period with satellites that do not show warming. This was done secretly and no explanation was offered. It required trans-Atlantic coordination to pull it off smoothly. Now that these 18 years of no-warming have been “liberated” we can add them to the current 15 years of no-warming and find that there has been no greenhouse warming whatsoever for the last 33 years. 15 years is sufficient to prove that greenhouse warming does not exist but 33 years makes icing on the cake. It is not likely that any greenhouse warming existed in earlier years when carbon dioxide was lower than tiday. Hence, there has never been any greenhouse warming whatsoever. And since greenhouse warming is also the lifeblood of the alleged anthropogenic global warming it follows that AGW does not exist either. Furthermore, since AGW is the Raison d’être of the IPCC it is time for these guys to pack their bags and disappear. They have done huge damage with trillions of dollars misspent to stop an imaginary warming. Before I stop I want to explain how they could have so completely mislead the world. They relied on Svante Arrhenius who showed that carbon dioxide absorbs in the infrared and gets warm. And this radiation is constantly leaving the earth and passing through the CO2 in the air that should absorb it and thereby warm the atmosphere. Add more CO2 and the atmosphere gets warmer – very simple explanation of why CO2 causes global warming. But things that seem simple are not always simple. CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas, water vapor is too, and so are some other minor gases. In 2007 Ferenc Miskolczi [2] showed that if several greenhouse gases simultaneously absorb IR an optimum absorption window exists that they jointly maintain. The major greenhouse gases in the earth atmosphere are water vapor and carbon dioxide. The IR optical thickness of their joint optimal absorption window is 1.87. This corresponds to a transmittance of 15 percent or absorbance of 85 percent. If you now add more carbon dioxide to air it will start to absorb and the optical thickness will increase. But as soon as this happens water vapor starts to diminish, rain out, and the optimal thickness of the absorption window is restored. Climate scientists at the time rejected it, probably because they did not understand the math. But in 2010 he had empirical proof [3]. Using NOAA radiosonde database that goes back to 1948 he studied the absorption of IR by the atmosphere over time. And discovered that the absorption had been constant for 61 years while carbon dioxide at the same time increased by 21.6 percent. This means that the addition of this substantial amount of CO2 to atmosphere had no effect on the absorption of IR by the atmosphere. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed. Which very neatly explains why the greenhouse warming that IPCC uses does not exist.
[1] Arno Arrak, “What Warming? Satellite view of global temperature change” (CreateSpace 2010)
[2] Ferenc M. Miskolczi, “Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres” Quarterly Journal of Hungarian Meteorological Service 111(1):1-40 (January-March 2007).
[3] Ferenc M. Miskolczi, “The stable stationary value of the Earth’s global average atmospheric greenhouse-gas optical thickness” E&E 21(4):243-262 (2010)
“The major greenhouse gases in the earth atmosphere are water vapor and carbon dioxide. The IR optical thickness of their joint optimal absorption window is 1.87. This corresponds to a transmittance of 15 percent or absorbance of 85 percent. If you now add more carbon dioxide to air it will start to absorb and the optical thickness will increase. But as soon as this happens water vapor starts to diminish, rain out, and the optimal thickness of the absorption window is restored. Climate scientists at the time rejected it, probably because they did not understand the math.”
I don’t get, nor I am sure most people think that the air is warmed by CO2 molecules.
So the analogy is blanket which prevent radiant heat from leaving earth surface. So, idea is CO2 up in the sky slows a brick on the ground from radiating as much energy as the brick would radiate without this CO2 molecule in the sky.
Both are crazy.
They are crazy because both are based on a false premise.
But I am interested in who thinks a excited CO2 molecule warms air [in any significant degree, measurable amount or even in any absolute terms].
I would equally interested fo people who believe “global warming” affirming clearly that they don’t believe that an excited CO2 molecule increases the kinetic energy of atmospheric gases in any significant degree.
Then after this, we can get to point of how some a non-reflective “material” is suppose to radiantly insulate something.
Or I would get it, if CO2 were tiny mirrors, then I would grant they would capable radiantly insulating. And do get that CO2 can re-radiate in random
direction [which is unlike reflection which requires a surface- btw, droplets of liquid water do have a surface- hence headlights and fog.]
“What I don’t get,” said the officer, “is how you lose ya cufflinks a hundred feet in front of where ya car is: a person usually stops his car past the place he loses somethin’, not a hundred feet before he gits to the place.”
………
“Is it against the law for a man to be down on all fours beside a road, barking in a perfectly civil manner?” demanded the lady.
………….
“Took ya glasses off so the headlights wouldn’t make ya glasses shine,huh?” he asked.
H/t who else but Thurber “The Topaz Cufflinks Mystery”.
===============
The important thing about CO2 and H2O molecules is that they can emit IR according to their temperature. When you point a radiometer up at a clear sky, even at night, 200-300 W/m2 may come from these molecules. If they were not there, it would be zero W/m2. This is the difference their presence makes. Kind of like having a roof over your head.
@gbaikie, I suggest you read the index of retraction chapters in Feynman’s Lectures.
Arno Arrak:
Please visit my comments on your references [2] and [3] at:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/15/bigger-coal/#comment-426436
http://judithcurry.com/2013/12/20/open-thread-weekend-41/#comment-427595
http://judithcurry.com/2013/12/20/open-thread-weekend-41/#comment-427734
http://judithcurry.com/2013/12/20/open-thread-weekend-41/#comment-428034
http://judithcurry.com/2013/12/20/open-thread-weekend-41/#comment-428433
http://judithcurry.com/2013/12/20/open-thread-weekend-41/#comment-428440
http://judithcurry.com/2013/12/24/open-thread-3/#comment-429497,
or at
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/11/the-magical-mystery-climate-index-what-does-it-show/#comment-97767.
I notice your claim that “The study also provides an explanation for seemingly incongruous climate trends, such as how sea ice can continue to decline during this period of stalled warming, and when the sea ice decline might reverse.” The explanation of the that “incongruous” sea ice decline is very simple: Arctic warming is not caused by an imaginary AGW but by warm Gulf Stream water carried into the Arctic Ocean by North Atlantic currents. See my paper in E&E 22(8):1069-1083. Judy has it on her web site. As to when it might end, I don’t know, but I speculate on it in my comment to “Uncertainty in Arctic temperatures” that you might want to look up.
Arno Arrak:
You say, “The major greenhouse gases in the earth atmosphere are water vapor and carbon dioxide. The IR optical thickness of their joint optimal absorption window is 1.87. This corresponds to a transmittance of 15 percent or absorbance of 85 percent.”
The papers [2] and [3] you refer here are performing CLEAR SKY longwave radiative transfer computations on AVERAGE CLOUDY atmospheric profiles. That is, they track the IR photon paths down to the ground and up to 60 km and calculates the IR transparency of this air column as if THERE WERE NO clouds in the air at all. But in reality there ARE clouds in the air and they are NOT transparent in IR. From radiosonde data you cannot even select out the overcast cases, so you do not have a REAL CLEAR SKY transparency either, and therefore you cannot construct a REAL clear-cloudy global average.
It is like to calculate your move in a big empty flat as if there were no walls when in reality there ARE rooms and walls. The average 15% transparency and the corresponding 1.87 optical depth are meaningless, nonphysical, artificial numbers, empty quantities. To claim the stability of the REAL global average clear+cloudy IR transparency based on this computation is impossible. To draw far-reaching conclusions from this is nonsense.
The bigger, ethical problem is that the author knows this, as it is he who supplies the cloudy input data into his clear-sky computer program, and it is he who publishes this junk in non-scientific, not-peer-reviewed journals. And he lets you, the layman, and his other non-expert readers to think that his method is correct. You ought to be outraged.
Pingback: David Rose on Judith Curry’s stadium wave | And Then There's Physics
Pingback: David Rose on Judith Curry’s stadium wave | Wotts Up With That Blog
Pingback: Climate Change | Sebastian Zearing's political thoughts
Pingback: De Galileo a Greenpeace | Pol-de-sac
Pingback: Scientists explore causes of the pause in warming, perhaps the most important research of the decade | Fabius Maximus
There is an interesting blogpost on the Realclimate web site on the subject of the pause.
It seemsthe observed increase in trade winds lead to the surfacing of cooler waters in the Eastern Pacific ocean and this phenomenon is found by models to cause global average temperatures to cool. The increase in trade winds is not explained by models. The models show that when the trade winds reduce, the return of warming is rapid. .
In addition other phenomena have been identified which can contribute to pause in warming and explain it two times over – increased aerosals, a solar minimum plus the missing data in the Arctic. Cowtan and Way have shown that use of satellite data to reconstruct the missing data in the Arctic makes the pause disappear and the average rate increase over the last 17 is 0.12C/decade.
I forgot to post the link for my last post:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/02/going-with-the-wind/
Actually there does appear to be agreement between top of the ocean warming rates and net energy flux at the top of the atmosphere.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=422
The pause in surface temperature may not exist, and there doesn’t appear to have been a pause in the heating rate.
This talk of a pause seems to be a lot of hype based on this evidence.
It’s sort of amusing the way you explain away the pause, and then deny it exists.
========
3x accounted for, then denied
“In addition other phenomena have been identified which can contribute to pause in warming and explain it two times over – increased aerosals, a solar minimum plus the missing data in the Arctic.’
Just like Lindzen says. No trouble in accounting, it’s all over-accounted for :)
It’s a comedy routine. Soon there’ll be 807 excuses for the pause that doesn’t exist.
Ninety-seven percent of climatologists say the pause don’t mean a thing.
But Honey, it ain’t got no schwing.
==================
It’s the same thing as for stating uncertainty. If the IPCC had ignored the pause, the skeptics would say they are hiding from the truth. If they acknowledge the pause, the skeptics are all over it as a validation of their view. In actuality, the pause is nothing but a temporary distraction, as will be seen with the next El Nino.
Stadium Waves Could not Explain Lull In Global Warming in my opinion.
Yet it describes how strong and effective it could be.
Pingback: UK-US Workshop Part V: Broadening the portfolio of climate information | Climate Etc.
Pingback: ‘Warming Interrruptus’ – Causes for The Pause | Watts Up With That?
Pingback: The heart of the climate dynamics debate | Climate Etc.
Pingback: Climate data and financial data: Part I | Climate Etc.