New paper from Dr. Judith Curry could explain ‘the pause’

From the Georgia Institute of Technology

‘Stadium waves’ could explain lull in global warming

This is an image of Dr. Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

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, which are parts of an oscillation in the ocean-atmosphere system. 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,’ in which positive and negative feedbacks interact 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,” said Wyatt, an independent scientist after having earned her Ph.D. from the University of Colorado in 2012.

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 School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Previous work done by Wyatt on the ‘wave’ shows the 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.”

###

Marcia Wyatt is an independent scientist. Judith Curry’s participation in this research was funded by a Department of Energy STTR grant under award number DE SC007554, awarded jointly to Georgia Tech and the Climate Forecast Applications Network. Any conclusions or opinions are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the sponsoring agencies.

CITATION: M.G. Wyatt, et al., “Role for Eurasian Arctic shelf sea ice in a secularly varying hemispheric climate signal during the 20th century,” (Climate Dynamics, 2013). http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-013-1950-2#page-1

About these ads

296 thoughts on “New paper from Dr. Judith Curry could explain ‘the pause’

  1. This is all very interesting and might well be right, I certainly focus my interests on these multi decadal cycles with 90 percent of my comments and reference page checking. But modeling such long cycles is disingenuous given the data availability and data quality issues. I thought we already suffered from the conversion of these cycles into constants in current models to guarantee large forecast error and the same goes for solar cycles. This is like trying to predict Great Depressions with only one or maybe two such events in the data set. How can you even begin to claim uniformity of those cycles relative to the data universe? I would still call this study progress for opening the door for global and regional cooling trends upcoming from these important cyclical components. Thank you both for shining more light on these important cycles.

  2. “…a reversal of this trend of declining sea ice”. Without this ‘poster child’ of AGW, the warmists will be screwed.

    “Marcia Wyatt is an independent scientist.” Yep, as sadly Academe now only welcomes paid-up Consensus believers.

  3. So are they saying that CO2 is warming the planet measurably, and the wave is currently cancelling these measurable CO2 effects predicted by the AGW crowd, but when the wave is not cancelling these CO2 effects, watch out? Or does this say CO2 has no measurable effect on climate?

  4. A simple (e.g., linear) extrapolation of temperatures based on an upswing of such a wave would over-predict future temperature increases. Likewise basing it on a downswing would under-predict increases.

    In the case of climate models, “tuning” the parameters to fit an upswing would also over-predict temperature increases, since these models do not allow for such waves. So I guess the questions are (1) does this wave truly exist, and (2) have climate modelers tuned their models to an upswing of this wave?

  5. Judith Curry or the IPCC?

    That’s a complete no brainier.

    The first is competent and flexible, while the second is a bloated bureaucratic ineptocracy, only interested in its own self-preservation.

  6. DaveR says:
    October 10, 2013 at 10:11 am
    This seems like a stretch. I’m going with the variable Sun.

    A seventh-inning stretch?

  7. Multichannel SSA? Cool. I use that all the time.

    I’ve recently developed a more robust version based on tensor rather than matrix rank reduction. I wonder if it would improve the analysis.

  8. 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.

    I am not convinced. Completely disregarding the Southern Hemisphere may give credence to this new model, but it comes at the cost of credibility. This is simply cherry-picking the location [the Arctic] that supports the new model.

    Global sea ice is not declining, it is at about its long term [30+ year] average.

    I also do not like predictions that will take decades to validate. Everyone seems to be making predictions for the 2030’s, the 2040’s, and longer. They were completely wrong in all of their previous predictions; why should these farther out predictions be any better? I smell grant trolling.

  9. I think there are more basic climate factors that caused the 16.8 year pause in global climate . These are, a much less active sun, a changing global ocean SST cycle which is headed for cooler ocean surface temperatures and a cooling Arctic due to changing deep ocean currents. Volcanic eruptions can also alter global weather but their effect only lasts for a few years and their timing is unpredictable. However whether you accept that the sun or the oceans or both as the prime climate drivers, both factors seem to point to possible 30-35 years of cooler weather rather than unprecedented warming. If we are also entering the start of the trough period of a longer 110+ year climate cycle as a result of three low solar cycles which occur every 100 years or so, then we may have even colder weather than the typical ocean driven 60 -70 year climate trough. This was the case during, 1790-1820 and again 1880-1910 troughs which were colder than the 1945-1975 trough. In either case the winters may be getting progressively colder for the next several decades. Winters during the next few years will get colder and most likely by 2018/2020 will be much colder than today. The winters could stay cold for the next several decades. This colder period can be moderated by warmer El Nino periods which typically occur every 3-7 years, however, there are also fewer strong climate alerting El Nino’s during cooler periods [only one per decade]. Land locked areas like Central US, Central Canada (especially the Prairies), Central Europe and Asia which do not get the moderating effect of the oceans could have colder winters than the coastal areas.

  10. Key words that stood out to me were “statistics”, “could”, and “unknown”.

    Curve fitting is at best a tricky art. It would be nice to see physical mechanisms presented.

  11. Well, I don’t know whether there is enough data available to draw the conclusions that this paper suggests, but at least the hypothesis seems plausible compared to the usual nonsense we frequently see like Trenberth’s deep diving ocean heat. Also, unlike many other fanciful notions advanced recently to explain the hiatus we should not have too long to wait to begin to confirm or falsify some of the conclusions put forward by this paper e.g. sea ice recovery.

  12. Go Home says:
    October 10, 2013 at 10:24 am

    Exactly: the “stadium wave” speaks to variability but not to the underlying trend. However, if the pause portion is a SW modification, then there is a component in the pre-pause that has to be attributed to the SW.

    What the Stadium Wave theory does is reduce the possible A-CO2 effect. Taken with probable (my work and opinion) component of increased insolation reaching the ground (less clouds), there isn’t much room for significant radiative forcing in CO2 (on a practical, results-of, scale).

  13. Wyatt and Curry’s paper is surely interesting. It clarifies how several subsystems of the Earth are linked to each other. And it confirms my (numerous) studies published since 2010 that “the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s” because of the quasi 60-year natural cycle.

    However, this work misses the major physical issue because it misses to explain the origin of the pattern itself. The key problem refers to this sentence “The AMO sets the signal’s tempo”. The paper does not tell us what is making the AMO to oscillate in the first place with a quasi 60-year cycle.

    As extensively demonstrated in the scientific literature (in particular my papers) this oscillation correlates with solar/astronomical oscillations. Thus is very likely of astronomical origin.

    To know more on the topic visit my web-site:

    http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/#astronomical_model

    Or read my latest work, e.g.

    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

    This paper contains a detailed analysis of all CMIP5 models used by the IPCC, and demonstrates that they do not reproduce the decadal and multidecadal patterns since 1850 (not just the temperature standstill since 2000, the failure is nearly total). The paper extensively discusses my astronomical based model since the Medieval Warm Period and demonstrates its far better performance than the CMIP5 models.

    Abstract:
    Power spectra of global surface temperature (GST) records (available since
    1850) revealmajor periodicities at about 9.1, 10–11, 19–22 and 59–62 years.
    Equivalent oscillations are found in numerous multisecular paleoclimatic
    records. The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) general
    circulation models (GCMs), to be used in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report
    (AR5, 2013), are analyzed and found not able to reconstruct this
    variability. In particular, from 2000 to 2013.5 a GST plateau is observed
    while the GCMs predicted a warming rate of about 2 °C/century.

    In contrast, the hypothesis that the climate is regulated by specific natural
    oscillations more accurately fits the GST records at multiple time scales. For
    example, a quasi 60-year natural oscillation simultaneously explains the
    1850–1880, 1910–1940 and 1970–2000 warming periods, the 1880–1910 and
    1940–1970 cooling periods and the post 2000 GST plateau. This hypothesis
    implies that about 50% of the ~0.5 °C global surface warming observed from
    1970 to 2000 was due to natural oscillations of the climate system, not to
    anthropogenic forcing as modeled by the CMIP3 and CMIP5 GCMs. Consequently,
    the climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling should be reduced by half, for
    example from the 2.0–4.5 °C range (as claimed by the IPCC, 2007) to 1.0–2.3
    °Cwith a likelymedian of ~1.5 °C instead of ~3.0 °C.

    Also modern paleoclimatic temperature reconstructions showing a larger preindustrial
    variability than the hockey-stick shaped temperature reconstructions
    developed in early 2000 imply aweaker anthropogenic effect and a stronger
    solar contribution to climatic changes. The observed natural oscillations
    could be driven by astronomical forcings. The ~9.1 year oscillation appears
    to be a combination of long soli–lunar tidal oscillations, while quasi
    10–11, 20 and 60 year oscillations are typically found amongmajor solar and
    heliospheric oscillations drivenmostly by Jupiter and Saturn movements.
    Solar models based on heliospheric oscillations also predict quasi secular
    (e.g. ~115 years) andmillennial (e.g. ~983 years) solar oscillations,which
    hindcast observed climatic oscillations during the Holocene.

    Herein I propose a semi-empirical climate modelmade of six specific astronomical
    oscillations as constructors of the natural climate variability spanning
    from the decadal to the millennial scales plus a 50% attenuated radiative
    warming component deduced from the GCM mean simulation as a measure of the
    anthropogenic and volcano contributions to climatic changes. The
    semi-empirical model reconstructs the 1850–2013 GST patterns significantly
    better than any CMIP5 GCM simulation. Under the same CMIP5 anthropogenic
    emission scenarios, themodel projects a possible 2000–2100 average warming
    ranging from about 0.3 °C to 1.8 °C. This range is significantly below the original CMIP5GCMensemblemean projections spanning fromabout 1 °C to 4 °C.

    Future research should investigate space-climate coupling mechanisms in order to develop more advanced analytical and semiempirical climatemodels. The HadCRUT3 and HadCRUT4, UAHMSU, RSS MSU, GISS and NCDC GST reconstructions and 162 CMIP5 GCM GST simulations from 48 alternative models are analyzed.

  14. herkimer,

    Good post. The planet may well cool from this point; we just do not know.

    What we do know is that we have already lost the propaganda battle: with terms like “pause”, “hiatus”, “lull”, “stall”, and similar words, which imply with certainty that global warming will resume.

    Those words all assume that the future is in full view: global warming will continue, therefore a ‘carbon’ tax is necessary. But those who pay attention to the real world know that presuming the future is exactly what witch doctors do to make a living.

    Skeptics look at the scientific evidence, and let the planet — not the IPCC, or scientists’ models — tell us what is happening.

    The planet [the ultimate Authority] tells us that global warming has stopped. For seventeen years! It may resume. Or not. But calling it a “pause” is premature. It is a spin word, nothing more.

  15. From an external analysis, the Solar system and our galactic system is what drives the temperature of the Earth. The variability is measured on very long time scales but (as we see from Voyager probes “leaving” our solar system) can also experience step changes in very short time periods. From an internal analysis, our Earth has numerous components that interact with each other to delay, prolong or lag the external forces imposed upon the Earth climate sum. Such small scale Earth systems (in comparison with the much large Solar and galactic) still have significant influence over Earth regional climates but they cannot lead the Solar/galactic forces, they only react and or delay the changes. The Sun has recently entered a period of lower activity, which influences Earth climate in ways that we do not understand. But my bet is that the stall in heating is related to Earth internal systems causing a lag in regional distribution but the stall was led by the Solar activity reduction. This new paper provides new insight into the way chaotic systems on earth are able to propagate variable levels of heat throughout Earth but it in no way explains the global stall in total Earth heat content. If it weren’t for so many warmists touting “missing heat in the bottom of the oceans” then we would be able to admit that the Earth has failed to heat up for fifteen years and now that the Sun has decided to dim down a bit, we’re entering a cooling phase. How much and for how long is the larger question.

  16. “The removal of the long-term trend from the data effectively removes the {potential (if it exists at all)} response from long term climate forcing such as anthropogenic greenhouse gases.” (Curry and Wyatt, 2013 – annotated by me)

    If Curry and Wyatt do not want to subtly and definitely (albeit weakly) promote AGW, qualifying language such as I added above must be included.

    At this point in the game, we are DONE with lukewarm, limp-wristed, hand waving. What is called for from this day forth is bold, loud, robust, assertion of the essentials, e.g., “HUMAN CO2 UP, WARMING STOPPED.”

    We are not at a relatively friendly ball game — we are in a WAR for the very survival of Western Civilization (which of course includes Israel and Japan) and FREEDOM.

    While scientific integrity, thus, no exaggerating of claims, is always required, we cannot afford to give even the tiniest quarter to the enemy. Not one inch.

  17. DaveR says:
    October 10, 2013 at 10:11 am

    This seems like a stretch. I’m going with the variable Sun.

    This is no stretch at all. In fact, the discussion of self-organizing phenomena recovers the fact that a formal definition of climate is “weather over time.” Climate is a “natural system” it is an emergent human perception of our experience of weather. Temperature records merely extend that perception. Even wikipedia accepts that.

    Weather is inherently a complex or chaotic system, a fact identified by Lorenz in the 1960s. Wyatt and Curry’s argument brings the “climate” back to weather. One of the problems with climate models is, as Curry points out, how deterministic they are. Many folks have argued that unless we really understand the natural variability of weather, it is impossible to really identifies human influences on climate. Since we still can’t reliable forecast weather in detail beyond a few days, especially around the equinoctial periods, the idea that climate changes can be reliably forecast is logically fallacious. In fact, the mechanistic view of climate employed by many climate scientists in the “warmist” camp is outright 19th Century in its logic and assumptions.

  18. This is probably right. And, when you subtract out the oscillatory effect, you are left with a trend which has had a steady slope since the end of the LIA. When you then take that out, there isn’t much left for CO2 impact.

  19. Looks a lot like what Jeff Patterson was saying here

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/11/digital-signal-processing-analysis-of-global-temperature-data-suggests-global-cooling-ahead/

    but without giving any indication of what analysis backs it up, nor gives an estimate of the magnitude nor hints at the future direction. From Jeff’s analysis, the waves are bigger than any trend by any supposed forcing and ultimately its all minor since we still don’t know what caused the ice ages, and whether or not the next one will come on cue in the 120 000 year cycle that the past few have been following.

  20. Janice Moore,

    Good post. There is still no verifiable, testable scientific evidence linking anthropogenic CO2 emissions to global warming. After so many years of batting that assumption around, you would think that there would be some empirical evidence showing a conclusive link. But there is no evidence. None at all.

    The entire climate scare is based on AGW. But there is no evidence that AGW exists. By now, there should be, no? But there is none! AGW is still only a conjecture.

    Wake me when someone can provide solid evidence that CO2 emissions cause global warming. Because Planet Earth does not agree.

  21. 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

  22. Dr. Curry still refuses to identify which political party members or persuasion might be found at an Earth Day rally of someone wearing a Che teeshirt there. Her technical comments are a distraction, she validates consensus science views while avoiding all motivations (directly that is) of the AGW movement itself. That isn’t a rational position but people want to validate the least insane person in the room. Dr. Curry is a poster child for failed skeptics to rally behind. Dr. Curry is completely corrupted by the process regardless of comparative relational appearance of “moderation” to say Jim Hansen or Michael Mann. Until the basics of AGW fanaticism are acknowledged there is no point in reviewing their “science” opinions. She’s just another part of the consensus spectrum with different views and goals but just as statist in the end game. Why trust her science view only because it modestly contradicts AGW extremism to some degree?

    Dr. Curry is where skeptics go to die in the debate. As David Brooks is to “conservatism” Dr. Curry is to skeptical arguments. Each side might try to use her but she remains an AGW advocate and the central planning agenda associate. “The Pause” is yet another stupid concept of defining reality within the confines of the AGW total meme, something to be explained and rationalized rather than an obvious total failure of model and bogus claims of AGW advocates for decades. While she might be hated in extreme advocate circles she is serving their interest in the walk-back operations and maintaining the illusion of rational science claim regarding co2 impact and mitigation efforts. So within a week of calling for the “put down” of the IPCC with an entire list of indirect and irrelevant reasoning we can expect to be bombarded with science debate talking points that preserve the function of the IPCC authority and consensus. Usual double talk for the weak minded, add another 20+ years of AGW and collectivist advantages on a global basis with no empirical evidence or observational proof of co2 climate sensitivity. If you but the “stadium wave” you might as well go all the way and buy “deep ocean heat” neither of which have a shred of measurements backing the claims.

    The point is to drive a stake in the heart of AGW junk science politics and the first thing is to accept what politics drove us to this point in the first place. The lust to control carbon at many levels including pinhead academia and “experts”. Once you digest Dr. Curry’s worldview (obfuscated at times as it may be) you would question her timing of “science” releases and priority statements as well. This is more climate science magic dust and carefully timed.

  23. Let me get this straight: the hypothesis is for a cycle of ~300 years duration, and the change in one empirical variable (Arctic sea ice minimum) from 2012 to 2013 is supposed to be indicative of a change in the cycle several years in the future? I have more confidence in the use of the purely content-free statistical tool MACD by David Dobrho.

  24. Janice Moore says:
    October 10, 2013 at 10:48 am

    Janice, Dr. Curry is a professional hand waver. Skeptics are so beaten down or politically ambivalent they accept it.

  25. Always amazing how they can find possible natural explanations for the lack of warming but cannot think of anything natural to account for any of the warming.

  26. Dr. Curry and Dr. Wyatt are paradigm breakers. The mainstream paradigm is a radiation-only account of climate phenomena that takes the radiation budget among the Sun, the Earth, and atmospheric CO2 as determining temperature change. Curry and Wyatt break this paradigm by providing evidence that there is a natural process, their “stadium wave,” that grabs hold of some of the energy and feeds on it. The key quotation from the article above is the following:

    “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,’ in which positive and negative feedbacks interact 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.”

    Curry and Wyatt postulate an AMO that has a causal role in “the wave.” They take seriously the existence of the AMO apart from radiation-only theory. Their work is the wave of the future in climate science (please forgive me). Of course, their work depends on multivariate analysis but climate science is in its infancy.

    Others have backed themselves into a similar position. Trenberth has realized that he must postulate mechanisms that are peculiar to the oceans and that transport heat from upper layers to deeper waters. These mechanisms pre-exist any effects of CO2.

  27. Steven Groeneveld. says:
    October 10, 2013 at 11:00 am

    IMO science does have a pretty good idea of what causes ice ages, at least the terrestrial as opposed to any possible ET effect.

    Taking the Cenozoic glaciations as an example, there were, among other factors, 1) tectonics, as in the collision of the Indian Plate with the Eurasian Plate, the isolation from other continents of Antarctica over the South Pole, the closure of the Panama Isthmus, & 2) the three orbital mechanical components of the Milankovitch Cycle, which controls or at least influences the timing of glacial/interglacial phases.

    The position of the continents also clearly featured in the Ordovician-Silurian & Carboniferous-Permian glaciations as well. It’s now thought that there was minor glaciation at the Jurassic-Cretaceous boundary, too. The quasi-regularity of these intervals might hint at ET contributing factors also.

    Predicting when the transition from our present interglacial to the next glacial phase might occur is currently beyond science, but it’s being studied. That’s just one of the many better uses for climate research dollars than the money wasted on worse than worthless, GIGO GCMs based upon worshiping the false Bitch Goddess Carbondioxidia.

  28. Stephen Wilde says:
    October 10, 2013 at 11:08 am

    Very well said. Isn’t it amazing that mainstream climate scientists, the MSM, and some skeptics just cannot get their minds around your main point?

  29. I don’t understand why this is “new”…
    Of course there are “stadium waves”…it’s obvious in every ice core
    ..only in this case they are going in the opposite direction
    We’re somewhere around the crest of one of those waves…a short uptic in temps
    when the overall trend is in the opposite direction…..down/cooler
    Obviously CO2, and the tipping point, is not strong enough to turn it in the opposite direction..up/higher
    …The level of CO2 right now is when it would have the most effect…and it didn’t
    Temps flatten out, and dropped a little

    obvious waves….

    ..and even more obvious waves

    from here…

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/

  30. Peter Miller says:
    October 10, 2013 at 10:26 am

    Both are interested in preserving positions in the debate. In both cases the “debate” and policy of some form will go on forever. Dr. Curry is a Fifth columnist to skepticism and science reform in general.

    Being, more “honest” than some isn’t the same as being honest. It’s time to move on from Dr. Curry as a climate debate champion, it’s nonsense. Does this mean I’m equalizing her to Al Gore or Michael Mann fanatical? No, but this can’t be the standard.

    If it had been a hot decade where would the AGW be today? Would there be an equivalent idiotic phrase like the “Pause” requiring decades l more of thought? Double think double standards are the order of the day.

  31. I’m glad I’m not the only one who thinks Curry is playing both sides of the debate. Can the “pause” be correlated with pirate population? Are there waves of pirates circling the equator with a 59-62 year period?

  32. The first test for any new climate theory is:
    What does it explain better – the past temperature time series of the Earth, or the past as distorted by GISS.
    If the latter, the theory is junk.

  33. Note that the article lacks IPCC like 95% hubris. It does not negate the sun as the primary cause of the waves nor does it claim that it is the end all of climate change explanation. The inclusion of modifiers such as “might” or “could” make the article scientific rather than political. I agree with Tisdale. congratulations are in order.

  34. According to this theory, what happens to the temperatures until the 2030s? Is there a chart published with this study?

  35. JDN says:
    October 10, 2013 at 11:31 am

    The “Pause” can correlated to anything accept the basic science premises of the AGW meme itself. That’s the key reason it exists. It might last thousand years if it helps preserve the climate consensus along the way. It’s life support time for the AGW meme but skeptics throw it a life line by accepting idiotic concept science like the “Pause”.

    Curryism, as bad as the disease itself. You’re adaptation global tax could be just as bad as you’re pointless mitigation tax in the Curry world order.

  36. “So are they saying that CO2 is warming the planet measurably, and the wave is currently cancelling these measurable CO2 effects predicted by the AGW crowd, but when the wave is not cancelling these CO2 effects, watch out? Or does this say CO2 has no measurable effect on climate?”

    Don’t think they say. Maybe I missed it. However, if there’s a cycle, that implies that a large portion of the recent run-up could have been the “hot” side of the wave, and now we’re getting the cold side. As a LONG TERM AVERAGE it’s probably trending up… I’d wager at close to the historical temperature rise (aka leaving the glacial period.)

  37. About the 60 year cycle in the AMO, it is also reflected in the Ocean Heat Content of the North Atlantic. If it is reflected in the ocean temperatures all the way down, then there is certainly an ocean thermohaline circulation driver in it.

    Now if we compare the NODC OHC for the North Atlantic with the AMO Index going back, we can imagine that the OHC followed this pattern as well.

    But does the Ocean Heat Content data going even farther back show this? Yes, it does in one of the only studies looking at North Atlantic OHC going back to 1900.

  38. As a LONG TERM AVERAGE it’s probably trending up…
    =
    depends on what you call long term…
    …overall it’s been trending down

  39. kcrucible says:
    October 10, 2013 at 11:54 am

    Depends on what you mean by long-term average. Definitely from the depths of the LIA 300 years ago, the T trend has been up. But the longer term trend is still down, as it has been since at least the Minoan Warm Period, if not indeed the end of the Holocene Climatic Optimum.

    The Modern Warm Period still probably has hundreds of years to run, so after the next 20-30-year cool phase, there will be another up trend, matching in slope those of the early 20th & late 19th centuries, recovering from the LIA. Given the pattern of the past 3000 to 5000 years, peak warmth of the Modern WP should be lower than that of the Medieval WP, which was lower than the Roman WP, which was lower than the Minoan WP. We may already have seen the peak however in the 1920s-40s or 1970s-90s, as the hottest parts of WPs seems to come early in the cycle. Same goes for interglacials themselves, as during the early Eemian & Holocene, for instance.

  40. Nice. I liked the look of the stadium wave when I first saw it here a couple of years ago, and it’s good to see it not only back but thriving and with the support of someone of Judith Curry’s calibre. Shall watch with interest.

  41. Looking at the Hadcrut (eg.) temperature record, Blind Freddie can see that there’s a multi-decadal cycle of sorts in the data. Nicola Scafetta, who has commented in this thread has been pointing it out for eons (but has no mechanism). Years ago, it was pointed out that it related to the ocean cycles, eg: http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Bastardi-PDOAMO-correlation.gif.

    Kudos to the authors (unlike the IPCC) for at least looking at the phenomenon, but I’m unconvinced that they have identified the mechanism. To convince me, they need 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. They need to identify features – by-products of the supposed mechanism – that can be tested for, and which are incompatible with other possible causes. Until they can do that, as Stephen Wilde so correctly says, “the ‘stadium wave’ concept is just a fancy name for the net interaction between the various oceanic oscillations ”.

    In spite of my sceptical view, I regard this paper by Curry and Wyatt very positively in one way – as Theo Goodwin says (October 10, 2013 at 11:17 am) “Dr. Curry and Dr. Wyatt are paradigm breakers”. Of course, it should not be that way, because the paradigm should have broken years ago.

    Regardless, the mere existence of this ‘multi-decadal cycle’ is sufficient to remove the ‘C’ from CAGW, because, of course, its upward cycle explains much of the late 20thC warming for which CO2 has been credited. But then, the IPCC has been blind to the cycle all this time, and will no doubt continue to keep its eyes firmly shut. Judith Curry, one of the authors of this paper, has recently called for the IPCC to be put down. In that she is undoubtedly correct.

  42. Since someone mentioned the pauses at the beginning and middle of the last century, ‘ve been waiting for this one. But is anyone checking where you should start to notice statistical resistance from previous historical highs, or for that matter, how soon we are due for another ice age decline? If the historical factors are strong and the CO2 factors are weak we should be expecting a turn, hopefully the upturn!.

    Perhaps there will be some symmetry between tops and bottoms. I’ve toyed with the idea that the difference in slopes of the horizontal or declining pauses may be an indicator of any CO2 effect.

    While technical analysis and charting doesn’t work too well for stocks, they seem to have some predictive use in climate data. I like trend lines, Bollinger Bands, channels, and support and resistance levels. I’ll leave to those who remember their statistics to write a proof or disproof, LOL.

  43. “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.”

    I think I need to read the actual scientific article to tell if the ‘grant trolling’ dbstealey suggested is going on is in the work itself or is the response of Curry and Wyatt to interview questions. Certainly tying one’s findings to recent events raises the profile of one’s work – and what a great feat, solving the problem of the ‘pause’. (What a loathsome, propagandistic, non-scientific term…) The interview quotes from Wyatt to the effect that “The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s,” and Curry’s response have sent the sine wave of my opinion regarding Judith Curry back on a downward course.

  44. Dr. Curry’s article is about science, not the politics of the IPCC or Obama. Having actually read it and studied its figures, it makes a number of major contributions beyond its PR. Since the CMIP3 archive did not reproduce the stadium wave, (CMIP5 not yet tested, or at least test reported) means all the IPCC stuff misses this phenomenon. Falsifies the models right there. Means they have over predicted temperature rise and climate sensitivity. More important, if you study the graphics, the present status of this stadium wave says the pause will continue for perhaps another decade, and that sea ice is beginning a natural 30 year recovery to maximum extent from its present stadium wave minimum. Both things mean increasingly obvious falsification of IPCC AR5. She is making predictions which should have everyone here rejoicing, not grousing.

  45. I agree with cwon14 above (as well as with those who have noted that “the pause” is a propaganda term, not an element of reality). The incompetent Curry even throws in “self-organizing”, to gain the quick sympathy of all who recognize and identify with it, since its invention and use in the never-ending struggle to defend the undirected-evolution paradigm, that provides the unquestioned (and for most, unquestionable) foundation for all of the life and earth sciences–which means that defending the consensus (and “damn the contrary evidence”), and beyond that, defending that reigning paradigm (which is as false as the climate science consensus), is her real central goal. She is, in essence, an academic “priest” with blatant political ambitions–she wants to be a climate ecclesiastic, having a strong influence on governmental (i.e., tyrannical) climate policy.

    “Self-organizing” really means uncaused, something just happens because it “wants to”, because it has a “preferred state” that it is magically attracted to, over and over again. All of these model-driven “scientists” of today obviously really just want to believe that “you create your own reality”, so they can diddle with reality as just so many word associations they feel entirely free to make up at will. And the believers, alarmist and lukewarmers alike, fall for it every time.

    Incompetent Skeptics IV: Dr. Judith Curry

  46. Go Home says:
    October 10, 2013 at 10:24 am

    So are they saying that CO2 is warming the planet measurably, and the wave is currently cancelling these measurable CO2 effects predicted by the AGW crowd, but when the wave is not cancelling these CO2 effects, watch out? Or does this say CO2 has no measurable effect on climate?

    Go home needs to look up “support” and “refute” in the dictionary. This paper does not deal with questions of what causes the stadium waves (such as the sun), nor does it deal with the AGW warming hypothesis beyond acknowledging its existence. It is very similar to an article published here a week ago, breaking up the temperature signals into two components–a wave that is similar to Wyatt/Curry’s and a long-term upward trend. That article pointed out that the conclusions depended on accepting HADCrut’s temperature record.

    Since the HADCrut record does not match the Central England record, nor the radiosonde/RSS data, nor the satellite data, all of which agree with each other, it is unlikely that these two articles/papers are correct about the pause/long term trend, although they are correct about the cyclic behavior. Rather, the HADCrut data is out of line, and the real explanation for the pause is the real explanation for the discrepancy–fiddled data.

    One part of the difference was found on a WUWT article showing the number of weather stations versus HADCrut temperature. The other part is found by following the money. For all the alarmist yowling about Skeptics well-funded campaigns supported by oil money, it is a running joke here that one has not received their Koch Brothers money yet (I have not received a penny of oil or fossil money either). The actual funding ratio is 1000 to 1 in favor of Alarmists. That includes oil money. Oil companies invested heavily in alternative fuels after the OPEC gas lines of the 1970’s, and they stand to make billions if the carbon tax is ever implemented.

    Ah yes, the carbon tax. It is an effort by politicians to grub more money out of a tapped-out public. This won’t work, since trashing Fossil Fuels reduces energy availability and raises energy costs, which have the US government on the ropes and wide disasters in Europe’s economies as well. How do you raise more taxes out of the unemployed? The real solution for the tax-feeders is to fire a third of the government workers, mostly the most regulatory ones, the ones squashing enterprise and freedom. It has been proven over and over that more freedom releases the creativity of the people, and you get whole new industries, wealth for everyone, and that includes more taxes without resentment.

    Most of us here are out to save the world–from “the environmentalists,” who are not merely devastating economically, but antagonistic to human life–and who trash the very basis of ALL life: carbon. If you really want to save the rainforests and the whales, the rare butterflies and the bees, then you need to handle the economics. Most of our enemies’ money comes from America’s National Science Foundation, which is heavily invested in warmist propaganda, and similar government funding in other countries. How do we replace this gravy train? By giving freedom back to the people, and by funding research in high schools as well as in colleges and universities, so that high school students would be taught by real researchers and also experience doing research. Gene sequencing, for example, is now so simple that high school students could easily be taught how to do it. The full research involves bacterial culture, and I do not think high school students should be doing that. This part could be done in local colleges and in grant-funded labs. This would provide more jobs for PHD’s and improve the Quality of Life for a lot of people. It would improve the dangerous science ignorance that we have now in the general population.

    And it would make it possible for the warmists to look at the actual science.

  47. “So are they saying that CO2 is warming the planet measurably, and the wave is currently cancelling these measurable CO2 effects predicted by the AGW crowd, but when the wave is not cancelling these CO2 effects, watch out? Or does this say CO2 has no measurable effect on climate?”

    The paper is absolutely neutral on the subject of Co2.

  48. So, how much of the late 20th century warming was due to the ‘wave’, leaving what little remains to attribute to CO2?

  49. Eyal Porat says:
    October 10, 2013 at 10:09 am
    But where is the sun?
    ================================
    My immediate reaction as well. But then I am reading “The Neglected Sun”…

  50. Mike Jonas says:
    October 10, 2013 at 12:19 pm
    Looking at the Hadcrut (eg.) temperature record, Blind Freddie can see that there’s a multi-decadal cycle of sorts in the data. Nicola Scafetta, who has commented in this thread has been pointing it out for eons (but has no mechanism).

    *********

    Actually my papers do propose mechanisms. There are specific solar models that predict the patters. The microscopic physical mechanism has to do with cloud modulation via electromagnetic interaction (cosmic ray etc) which are modulated by the astronomical cycles.

  51. Rud Istvan says:
    October 10, 2013 at 12:25 pm
    Dr. Curry’s article is about science, not the politics of the IPCC or Obama. Having actually read it and studied its figures, it makes a number of major contributions beyond its PR. Since the CMIP3 archive did not reproduce the stadium wave, (CMIP5 not yet tested, or at least test reported).

    ****

    Not correct. Both CMIP3 and CMIP5 models were extensively tested one by one. See may recent papers.

  52. Latitude: “I don’t understand why this is “new”…”

    I don’t disagree. But modern science, especially in some fields, is less studied inquiry than it is a Battle of the Bands. Curry might not be much of a rockstar, but she is one still. And she’s put her John Hancock down next to Wyatt on a paper that produces an affirmative claim. And like it or lump it, the fans don’t like it when you point out that Milli Vanillli is a fake band. Unless you give them a new band they can throw their underwear at.

  53. This does not explain anything, and tries to tie the whole climatic system of the earth to the Atlanticc Multidecadel Oscillation and the sea ice extent in the Eurasian Arctic shelf seas. At the same time it does not address what is going on in the Southern Hemisphere which may be impacting the climate, and gives no attention to ENSO, VOLCANIC ACTIVITY, OR SOLAR.

    This theory does nothing to explain the Little Ice Age, cold period, or the Medieval warm period, or past abrupt global climatic changes.

    It is as bad as the AGW theory in that it tries to piegon hole one or two items that influence the climate and make it seem like these two items control the the whole climatic system of earth and can explain all the changes the climatic system of earth may take going forward.

    It also lacks a reason to explain why the AMO may or may not shift into a different phase, it just says it does and when it does the whole climate system in response will change. It also gives an excuse to keep the AGW models valid. Not good enough Judith Curry.

  54. Mike Jonas says:
    October 10, 2013 at 12:19 pm

    “Judith Curry, one of the authors of this paper, has recently called for the IPCC to be put down. In that she is undoubtedly correct.”

    Yes, but without listing the specifically the worst attributes of the IPCC and consensus in the process. Largely because the agenda failed. She’ll gladly support a renamed IPCC with the same failed agenda attached. She doubts the tactics but not the motivations of the AGW meme participants.

  55. “Say something once. Why say it again?” (David Byrne, Talking Heads)

    That would in eliminate 99% of climate related conversations in the past 30 years.

  56. 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.”
    ====

    A one year change is sea? That’s really going out on a limb when publishing about a 60 cycle.
    Shame she didn’t have time to benefit from that article I submitted to Climate Etc last week.

    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/09/16/on-identifying-inter-decadal-variation-in-nh-sea-ice/

    There is more that one year of change. It shows a slowing rather than a turnaround but this is a more credible reaction to the Pause than a one year glitch.

    The lag it implies is more consistent with thier mexican wave analogy too.

  57. Also it does nothing to addres why the climate may shift from one climate regime to another climate regime. This is the same problem Nicola Scafetta has by the way. They think every thing is cyclic,cyclic and more cyclic, when in fact this is not so . The climate is a non linear system which can shift from one climate regime to another climate regime, depending on the extent and location of certain forces, the degree of magnitude change of those forces, not to mention the beginning state of the climate.

    Nicola’s work is great if the climate stays in the same climate regime but does NOTHING to explain abrupt climatic changes or climatic shifts from one climate regime to another one. Judith Curry also falls way short even more so then Nicola, in this area.

    The upshot is they both don’t have the real answers as to why the climate changes.

  58. Salvatore Del Prete says:
    October 10, 2013 at 12:36 pm
    This does not explain anything, and tries to tie the whole climatic system of the earth to the Atlanticc Multidecadel Oscillation and the sea ice extent in the Eurasian Arctic shelf seas. At the same time it does not address what is going on in the Southern Hemisphere which may be impacting the climate, and gives no attention to ENSO, VOLCANIC ACTIVITY, OR SOLAR. This theory does nothing to explain the Little Ice Age, cold period, or the Medieval warm period, or past abrupt global climatic changes.

    ***********

    Ok, read my latest work where all these issues are discussed.

    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

  59. Judith seems to be limiting this paper to the 60 year PDO (or rather Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation.

    She is just saying that it is a type of stadium wave which creates that 60 year periodicity.

    I previously described it as a product of the net interaction between the ENSO process in the Pacific and the responses feeding back from all the other ocean basins.

    It doesn’t deal with longer term variations such as MWP, LIA and current warm period as Salvatore points out.

    It is time that emphasis was placed on the oceans in this way but it is not news. It is simply an attempt to model the phenomenon of interacting ocean oscillations contained in the well known PDO signal that I pointed to back in 2008.

    Thus we have up to 30 years of a negative phase (or downside of the stadium wave) to look forward to which s bound to impact heavily on the present attempts at AGW fear mongering.

    Of course the upside of the past 30 years could explain recent warming too.

  60. Salvatore Del Prete says:
    October 10, 2013 at 12:51 pm
    ==========================
    Au contraire – what they are positing may well be a contributory factor to the pause/decline.

  61. Another stadium wave:
    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

  62. Salvatore Del Prete says:
    October 10, 2013 at 12:44 pm
    Nicola’s work is great if the climate stays in the same climate regime but does NOTHING to explain abrupt climatic changes.

    *******
    The “abrupt climatic changes” cannot be modeled without a full understanding of all geophysical mechanisms. Sorry if my model cannot predict a huge volcano, or a huge asteroid collision or a huge earthquake or other ocean circulation disruptions.

    However, no serious “abrupt climatic changes” were observed since 1850, my model get pretty well all observed climate variations.

  63. Salvatore Del Prete says:
    October 10, 2013 at 12:36 pm

    “It also gives an excuse to keep the AGW models valid.”

    Isn’t that convenient considering the source?

  64. NICOLA’S EXPLANATIONS- are a 1000x times better then what Judith Curry puts forth and are very good when it comes to explaining climatic flucuations when in a particular climate regime, but still I don’t see any explanations in his work that explain why the climate can go along in one climate regime with cycles in that climate regime and then out of the blue shift to another climate regime, which has happened as evidence by past abrupt climatic changes. Such as The Younger Dryas, or the 8200 year ago cold period both which began and ended in decades.

    Cycles do not explain that, but again your work is excellent in explaining the changes in the climate within a particular climatic regime.

  65. 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.

  66. Yes ,but we ALREADY KNOW, when the AMO phase shifts from a warm to a cold phase that this is going to contribute to cooling, just like when the PDO goes from a warm phase to a cold phase promoting more La Ninas.

    She has said nothing that is not already known. I see no new discovery here

  67. JDN says:
    October 10, 2013 at 11:31 am
    “I’m glad I’m not the only one who thinks Curry is playing both sides of the debate. Can the “pause” be correlated with pirate population? Are there waves of pirates circling the equator with a 59-62 year period?”

    You must suggest a physical mechanism that connects pirates with climate; it would be advantageous if that mechanism had pirates as the cause and temperature as the effect.

  68. I think the description of Dr Curry as a 5th columnist puts the situation in a nutshell. Her non-threatening bland approach is much more effective than the ranting of other CAGW proponents. Her work will probably allow the IPCC to survive.

  69. We get back to one key issue: If this concept, or any other issue which relies on natural periodicity, is part of the story, then temperature increases have not “paused” – they have peaked and are entering a new cycle. The word pause means that we fully expect (predict) that the increase will resume at some time. The post also does not even consider whether the 20th century warming was the result of the same cyclicity; i.e., why do even discuss warming from 1950-2000 as if it is being countered by some natural cycle which includes cooling, when in fact, a cycle which includes cooling also by default includes warming, and likely the very warming which the subsequent cooling is reversing – not counteracting.

  70. Salvatore Del Prete says: “Bob Tisdale congratulates them as if they have solved the climate puzzle ,when the reality is they have contributed nothing new or different in solving the climate puzzle.
    “Ridiculous.”

    I congratulated them on having their paper published. Your complaint is ridiculous.

  71. Janice Moore says:
    October 10, 2013 at 10:48 am

    At this point in the game, we are DONE with lukewarm, limp-wristed, hand waving. What is called for from this day forth is bold, loud, robust, assertion of the essentials, e.g., “HUMAN CO2 UP, WARMING STOPPED.”

    ————-
    Janice Moore is absolutely correct.

    It appears that only a very few people have the nerve to publicly admit that there is not enough CO2 in the atmosphere to affect the surface temperatures in any measurable way whatsoever.

    Increases/decreases in atmospheric CO2 ppm are the result of increases/decreases in land/ocean surface temperatures, …… not the cause of them.

    The past 55 years of steady and consistent bi-yearly cycling of CO2 ppm as portrayed on the Keeling Curve graph is factual evidence for said.

    Associating increases in CO2 ppm with the calculated increases in average surface temperatures …… which are directly influenced by “hot spots” on the surface …… does not prove that CO2 is the culprit

    Averages are like boats, they rise and fall depending upon which way the “tide” is flowing.

    And a follow-up quote of confirmation of my above, to wit:
    ————-

    dbstealey says:
    October 10, 2013 at 11:01 am

    “There is still no verifiable, testable scientific evidence linking anthropogenic CO2 emissions to global warming. After so many years of batting that assumption around, you would think that there would be some empirical evidence showing a conclusive link. But there is no evidence. None at all.”

    ————
    Given the above said, the primary claim of CAGW should be falsified first and foremost. All other claims of CAGW will fall victim after that.

  72. Isn’t it time for Dr. Roy to step in and rip JC for not acknowledging all the papers already published about this topic? Oh…that’s right. Dr. Curry is already in the club.

    pbh

  73. Multi level, nested feed foreward and feed back loops, with bypass loops, with variable amplitudes and variable phase delays that vary spatially, all powered up by a variable star.
    Good luck!

  74. McComberBoy says:
    October 10, 2013 at 1:36 pm

    The authors may have cited previous relevant work. Please say if I’m wrong, based upon your reading of the paper. I don’t know, not having read their work, but it would be traditional to have done so.

  75. First it’s not a pause, it is a stop. If it resumes outside “improved data” we will see – depending if CO2 signal can be detected or is simply lost in the noise.

    I think the paper is refreshing as it brings to attention the multidecadal/centenial variations that are completely brushed under the carpet by consensus-climatology.

    It also brings on the table the fact that potentially the warming observed was partially or totally due to multidecadal oscillations and has nothing or not much to do with CO2 – what is an alarmist tabu theme.
    “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.”

    This further reduces the significance of CO2 for climate.

  76. Why all this criticism of Dr Curry? She is a genuinely curious scientist, trying to understand what is going on. In that sense, she is a valuable rarity.

    Climate Science (the exploration of the natural oscillations of the climate with which we’ve had to contend for millenia) died in the 1980s, to be replaced by Climate Change Science (how many activists can dance on the head of a CO2 molecule). Hansen destroyed Climate Science, and then replaced it with a pale shadow.

    Dr Curry still believes in AGW, but thinks the predominating sloshing around of energy within the climate system has been neglected by noveau-riche Climate Change scientists. Good on her!

  77. Walt The Physicist says:
    October 10, 2013 at 1:50 pm

    Disgusting! The NWF has been corrupted, too. No surprise, I guess, since they’re on the CACA gravy train, too.

  78. I see more statisitcal climate models here, lots of mights and coulds, and not much in the way of proposed falsification. But at least this hypothesis is interesting and might someday be falsifiable with real world observation.

    Some folks are being very harsh toward Dr. Curry. I’ll give her credit for listening and thinking, and I think her views are slowly evolving. I hope those harsh critics realize that Dr. Curry advocated for eliminating the IPCC last week. One of her statements, “…paradigm paralysis seems fatal in the case of the IPCC, given the widespread nature of the infection and intrinsic motivated reasoning. We need to put down the IPCC as soon as possible.” can be seen in the Conclusion paragraph here: http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/28/ipcc-diagnosis-permanent-paradigm-paralysis/

  79. Old Grey Badger says:
    October 10, 2013 at 10:47 am

    Thanks to you & Jo Nova for bringing to this blog’s readers’ attention the remarkably well researched, open access paper on possible lunar effects on the ENSO & other possible climatic phenomena.

  80. charles the moderator says:

    Dr. Scafetta, rather than self-promote here, why don’t you head to Climate Etc. and discuss directly with Dr. Curry?

    ***

    Charles, have you noted that I am talking about the 60-year oscillation, of the “pause” in global warming that could extend into the 2030s, etc since several years and that this web-site have published numerous of my finding?

  81. cui bono says:
    October 10, 2013 at 2:00 pm

    Why all this criticism of Dr Curry? She is a genuinely curious scientist, trying to understand what is going on. In that sense, she is a valuable rarity.

    ///////////

    She can’t identify the AGW movement and its leading participants as either left or right wing in political nature. How is that the sign of “curiosity”??

    Middling disinformation and distraction. If you remove her from the dominating culture of Greenshirt zealots and judged her on her own nuances would you offer the same praise? She’s a facilitator of the AGW movement as a straw dissenter .

  82. So this just gives a new name to the ~60yr cycle that even I, a non-climate scientist, have been using to analyze with a little skill the periods of floods, droughts, wildfires, hurricanes…. It’s probably good work but why couldn’t they candidly identify the well known (outside of the IPCC) cycle right in the title in stead of focusing on explaining the reason for the politically motivated term ‘pause’. The pause is a way of suggesting a temporary flattening of a curve that is set to take off again on the recent warming trend. Smart money is on the bet that things are going to cool for a couple of decades and that suggests that it might be a couple of decades after that before it could regain what it lost and by then 2100 is going to be just fine, probably in time for it to get colder again and sea level to drop. I’d like to see their graph. I think I’ll plot one up now and compare it when we see theirs in print.

  83. The Dr.’s Curry and Wyatt are obviously football fans with their stadium wave analogy. One more reason to like them. As an aficionado of all things Georgia Tech, not just their football team, I worship the ground Dr. Curry walks on. She is in a long line of Georgia Tech people who have as astronauts and scientists in many fields contributed to human knowledge and welfare. My respect for Georgia Tech in supporting her when her views have not always been PC and for her in having those views knows no bounds. I am, after all, a rambling wreck.

  84. vigilantfish says:
    October 10, 2013 at 12:24 pm
    … the ‘pause’. (What a loathsome, propagandistic, non-scientific term…)…

    Yes; perhaps we are now in the “anthropostasis”

  85. Nicola Scafetta – “Actually my papers do propose mechanisms‘. My apologies. I should have checked.

  86. This is all unfair to a certain Central American country. At what time, when I wasn’t looking, did The Mexican Wave become renamed The Stadium Wave?

    Rich.

  87. as posted on JC’s blg:
    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.

  88. To suggest there is a pause is in a way accepting something unusual is going on….but analysis of empirical data over millions of years shows no such thing. We have for instance been cooling since the Climatic Optimum which was 10,000 years ago and at the end of the last Ice Age in the Younger Dryas Period the temperature went up 10C in 3 years….and then fell again.
    As Prof Stott would say “it’s all a bit like Glasgow on a Saturday night….chaotic”!

  89. Thanks, D. B. Stealey, for the generous compliment and Sam C. and C 114 #(:)) for your affirmation. It is just so nice to find out that ANYONE read one’s post, isn’t it?

    As Bob Tisdale said, “Congratulations!” are in order; I added what I did above to say:

    “Come on, guys, you can do better.”

    *****************
    Can’t take the time now to affirm all the fine comments above, so I’ll just tell you, Brian H (2:47pm),
    nice post — lol.

  90. Salvatore Del Prete: Because you thought my congratulating Marcia and Judith for having their paper published was ridiculous, and because I’ve now had the chance to skim Wyatt and Curry (2013), I thought you’d find interest in the comment I left them over at Judith’s blog;
    # # #
    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

  91. Bart says:
    October 10, 2013 at 10:57 am
    This is probably right. And, when you subtract out the oscillatory effect, you are left with a trend which has had a steady slope since the end of the LIA. When you then take that out, there isn’t much left for CO2 impact.
    ————————————————————————————————
    Indeed, a steady slope trend of 0.25 deg C per century since the LIA. And as Bart says take that out and there’s bugger-all left for CO2.

  92. Oh, and Stan Stendera…. (even though you ignore me 9 out of 10 times),

    You are a beautifully coherent, greathearted, true Truth in Science Hero. You get the Devotion to Duty and Most Inspirational Award. Don’t think inspiration is important? Ha. Without it, entire armies up and QUIT.

    You go, Stan.

  93. Quoting Dr. Scafettta

    Charles, have you noted that I am talking about the 60-year oscillation, of the “pause” in global warming that could extend into the 2030s, etc since several years and that this web-site have published numerous of my finding?

    And this thread is about the Curry and Wyatt paper. I suggest you put on your big boy pants, go over there to discuss your criticisms, take credit, post links to all your papers, and tell everyone how you covered all of this previously and explained everything about everything and see how well it flies.

  94. It is a beautiful concept, but why believe in it?

    If JC had no history of believing in CO2 induced CAGW, and was looking at the data with fresh eyes, would she have come up with this complex explanation involving CO2? I think not. The belief is followed by a complex scientific explanation and theory.

    As usual the science is twisted to fit the belief

  95. Hmmmmm … so waves can be used to analyse temperature spreads. Didn’t Fourrier develop wave equations to model heat conduction? Lovely symmetry across scales of time and distance.

  96. “The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s,” said Wyatt, an independent scientist after having earned her Ph.D. from the University of Colorado in 2012.

    Let’s see now, if this statement is correct it means:
    15 years of global warming pause + 17 years of standstill = 32 years at least.
    Climate is 30 years or more of weather data.

    Could this cause a problem for the consensus?

  97. Curry added, “This prediction is in contrast to the recently released IPCC AR5 Report that projects……

    This is what I like, a lady with balls, unlike the men at the IPCC who don’t have any.

  98. 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.

    Sorry Curry but Prof. Peter Wadhams says you are wrong. He predicted that there would be no ice in the Arctic latest September 2016. In the real world we saw an over 29% increase this September over 2012.

    Guardian – 17 September 2012
    This collapse, I predicted would occur in 2015-16 at which time the summer Arctic (August to September) would become ice-free. The final collapse towards that state is now happening and will probably be complete by those dates“.
    [Professor Peter Wadhams - Cambridge University]

    This is going to be another wonderful Viner / Harold Camping moment. Get ready with your popcorn and cola.

  99. “The removal of the long-term trend from the data effectively removes the response from long term climate forcing such as anthropogenic greenhouse gases.”

    Who’d have thought….

  100. More than anything, I think that this shows that a) The science is not settled; and b) The models that are the basis for CAGW are bogus.

  101. I would rather think of the stadium wave as a model of the global warming delusion, initiated by a few and propagated by social pressure.

  102. Bob, they have said nothing new, nothing none of us have known which in turn does nothing to give us a further understanding of our climate system.

    Everything they said is known ,thre is no new information.

  103. charles the moderator says:
    October 10, 2013 at 3:08 pm
    Quoting Dr. Scafettta…..

    And this thread is about the Curry and Wyatt paper. I suggest you put on your big boy pants, go over there to discuss your criticisms, take credit, post links to all your papers, and tell everyone how you covered all of this previously and explained everything about everything and see how well it flies.

    **********
    Dear Charles, beside the fact that your comment is villain, which says much on yourself,
    I am commenting about the Curry and Wyatt paper.

    That paper confirms the existence of the 60-year wave I am talking since 2009 (presented at the EPA) and is in agreement with all my papers that Anthony has recently dismissed based on misleading and unfair opinions he get from some of his friends.

    As I said above the paper is interesting but misses a discussion on the the driving forces, which however my papers address.

    Note that this is aknowledged in the comment from Wyatt:

    http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/10/the-stadium-wave/#comment-396512

    ******
    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?

    sing 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,
    ******

    All the above points are already extensively discussed in my papers since 2010. So, if your readers would like to know more about these things they may be interested in visiting my web-site:

    http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/#astronomical_model

    Or read my latest work, e.g., that they can find there too

    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

    And perhaps Anthony should start to reconsider his unreasonable position.

  104. I want some thoughts. What do you think Warmist climate scientists would say IF the Arctic sea ice extent grew over the next 10 years (with downs and ups, but mostly ups)? Here are a few thoughts of mine:

    “Extent isn’t important, we need to look at volume”. (ducking, diving, weaving)
    “The trend since 1979 is still down.”
    “The trend since 1850 is still down”
    “It’s man-made masking.”
    “It’s rotten, crumbly, wibbly wobbly sea ice.”
    “A new paper predicts rapid melting soon, temporary reprieve.”

    What if volume increased too?
    “But the Antarctic Peninsula is hotting up.”
    “Antarctica’s sea ice extent is increasing due to catastrophic warming.”
    “Antarctica’s glaciers are slipping and sliding.”

    “Just look at Greenland……………………………………………………………………….”

    Whenever I lack entertainment, I check out these chaps. They never fail.

  105. “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,”
    Henk Tennekes, where are you when we need you?

    “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,”
    An honest plea for more money.

    The problem with “Multi-channel Singular Spectrum Analysis” or any other type embedding dimension type analysis is that you never know if you have enough data. Since the signal, by definition, is not necessarily bounded, you never know if there is some lower or higher dimension signal is about to jump right in and change the analysis that was just completed. Yeah, it’s a really good curve fit (a really good honest one) but it’s just a curve fit.

  106. There is an alternative explanation for the pause which does not require belief in any waves and that is that the CO2 heating effect is quite small. How small? Well, according to MODTRAN, at the current concentration of 400 ppm each further 100 ppm is worth 0.1 degrees C. We are adding 2 ppm per annum so that is 0.002 degrees per annum for a total of 0.034 degrees over the pause. The pause is actually the end of the plateau in solar activity. With an 8 to 12 year lag between solar activity and climate, we are about to feel the effect of the downturn after the 2003 second peak of Solar Cycle 23.

  107. I like this. Makes intuitive sense. The thermal mass and inertia of the climate system make me think of a stadium wave, all right; but also of a bunch of weights of different sizes, coupled with springs of different strengths, and with drivers and brakes here and there. Fire that baby up, push here and pull there, and keep introducing odd jiggles of different force and duration and frequency. Then watch its behavior evolve. I would expect to see emergent semi-chaotic coupled nonlinear dynamics a little like the real world of weather and climate. But what do I know? I don’t even play a climatologist on TV. I’m just glad we have folks like Wyatt and Curry doing this kind of work, which is at least sensible and useful, and may be breakthrough.

  108. Salvatore Del Prete says:
    October 10, 2013 at 1:00 pm

    NICOLA’S EXPLANATIONS- are a 1000x times better then what Judith Curry puts forth and are very good when it comes to explaining climatic flucuations when in a particular climate regime, but still I don’t see any explanations in his work that explain why the climate can go along in one climate regime with cycles in that climate regime and then out of the blue shift to another climate regime, which has happened as evidence by past abrupt climatic changes. Such as The Younger Dryas, or the 8200 year ago cold period both which began and ended in decades.

    The Younger Dryas = nobody knows why.

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.quascirev.2008.02.004

  109. I am with Stephen Wild on this one.

    This paper is a classic case of some one in the “in-crowd” saying exactly what people in the “out-crowd” having being saying for close to a decade (or more) and being told by the “in-crowd” that they are “paradigm-breakers”.

    Yes, it is good that some one has got a peer-reviewed statement (of what has been been obvious to others) through the to the hallowed halls of “main-stream” science.

    Try imagining a crowd of 100 people screaming “danger, catastrophe, the end is nigh, and kiss your shiny knee-caps good-bye” at you for over 10 years. Imagine that the screams and yells were so loud that they completely drowned out the quiet voices of two people who were calling for calm and a more tempered approach.

    Suddenly, after 10 years of this cacophony, two of the yelling screaming crowd step forward, making sure that they block out your view of the two quietly spoken skeptics and proudly announce to one and all that:”we should all adopt a calmer and a more tempered approach”.

    I am sure that many would cheer this new revelation…..

    However, I for one cannot help feeling sorry for the two who got spat upon by all of the others in the screaming crowd, including the two who are now basking in the glow of this so-called “new discovery”.
    . .

  110. This thread regrettably illustrates the worst of climate change skepticism, rather than the best. Especially concerning a paper that puts down the IPCC AR5, from a reformed former ‘insider’.
    Worse than the present Republican House of Representatives. Self destruction is not a seemly act. If you all insist on it, why not do it privately rather than so publicly using unseemly rants?

  111. Leslie:
    I was just thinking the same- an excellent analogy.
    By the way, here in Oz we call it a “Mexican” wave. Last one I was involved in was at a 1 day cricket match at the Gabba about 10 or 12 years ago. I think it has been banned since, perhaps because it creates a lot of rubbish thrown up and causes the crowd to lose interest in the main game- so the analogy with AGW is a good one.

  112. Izzat “Stadium Wave” sorta like the sheet of darkness that sweeps across the plains and mountains and shorelines, and oceans, followed by a similar light sheet, only to be repeated time and again each 24 hours as the earth rotates on its axis, driving this dark/light “Stadium wave ” phenomenon ???

  113. There it is. Curry’s a Magic Gasser. Like all Magic Gassers everything scientific represents “a deep mystery”

    When the thermometer presents utter mystery to them,
    they claim you don’t understand.

    An entire blogosphere full of paid PhDs who can’t predict which way a thermometer will go.

    =====

    October 10, 2013 at 11:16 am
    (Janice Moore says:
    October 10, 2013 at 10:48 am)

    cwon14 says:

    Janice, Dr. Curry is a professional hand waver. Skeptics are so beaten down or politically ambivalent they accept it.

  114. Look…we can all see how the game of science works. As the consensus science collapses, there will be mainstream scientists who will repackage what skeptics have been saying for two decades. Some of them may be the very ones who ridiculed and made fun of the skeptics. They will act like they have discovered something new. The rest of the club will then pretend that it is something new and give these fraudsters all the credit, and the chairs and the pensions. Judith Curry may be the first and the least offensive of this group.

    If you are a citizen or ‘outside the mainstream’ skeptical scientist, don’t expect any recognition, at least not your lifetime. Take heart in the knowledge that you were right all along, that the global con known as CAGW is collapsing and that you probably had more to do with it than the world will ever know.

    We appreciate your efforts and thank you!

  115. Jimbo says:
    October 10, 2013 at 4:56 pm

    An event like the YD has been detected during Termination III (~245 Ka) & possibly Termination IV in data from Chinese stalagmites.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19815769

    The usual genuflection toward CACA is of course obligatorily made in the abstract. Full article apparently not currently available due to government shutdown/Obama administration ploy.

  116. Rud Istvan says:
    October 10, 2013 at 5:05 pm

    Response:
    I take it that you meant the following:

    “Bad skeptics, bad skeptics…. You should be grateful that two out of the two thousand climate-alarmists have stopped spitting in your face. Next you be asking them to stop kicking you while you are down. The nerve of some people…. “

  117. “””””…….Rud Istvan says:

    October 10, 2013 at 5:05 pm

    This thread regrettably illustrates the worst of climate change skepticism, rather than the best. Especially concerning a paper that puts down the IPCC AR5, from a reformed former ‘insider’.
    Worse than the present Republican House of Representatives. Self destruction is not a seemly act. If you all insist on it, why not do it privately rather than so publicly using unseemly rants?…….””””””

    Dunno where you hail from Rud, But I hasten to point out that those “Republican House of Representatives” folks you deride, just happened to be sent there by a clear majority of the voting people of the United States; and they were sent there with a job to do; namely to put an end to the revolving credit card financing Scam that has replaced the Constitutionally required “Annual Budget” that the Administration is REQUIRED to present to those folks each and every year for their approval.

    The present executive branch administration have NEVER presented an annual budget for approval, ever since they have been in office.

    So any self destruction that YOU might perceive is being dictated by a self centered spoiled brat who never in his life has made a budget for a lemonade stand.

  118. Ken Stewart says:
    October 10, 2013 at 5:06 pm

    Canadians claim to have invented the Wave in the 1970s. Actual evidence of its first appearance however dates to the US in Oct 1981. The professional cheerleader Krazy George says he has footage of his leading a Wave at an As-Yankees baseball playoff game that month, having accidentally invented it at a previous hockey game (maybe he borrowed it from Canadians without attribution). There is definite proof of a Wave at a U-Dub football game in Seattle later that month. Texas JayCees also claim to have invented it while waiting for Reagan to speak in June of that year.

    It’s called the Mexican Wave in the rest of the English-speaking world because it caught on South of the Border in time for the 1986 World Cup there.

    The problem of trash can be managed by giving spectators something to hold up to make designs that move:

    http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Packers-crowd-gets-patriotic-with-enormous-Ameri?urn=nfl-wp6750

    But then someone has to print all those placards.

  119. when I was a young boy back in the sixties we where told that the sun controlled the heating and cooling of earth . ? why the scientists will not mention the sun in any warming theory is beyond me . I think I have the answer you cannot tax the sun

  120. Wowe !! I see Chasmod up there flexing his biceps in great style. Way to go Chas, I wondered why you have been so quiet of late.

    George

  121. Rud Istvan says:
    October 10, 2013 at 5:05 pm

    Worst of climate skepticism?

    Correct but for all the wrong reasons Rud. The paper is a total distraction of what essentially wrong with the warming argument. Like the “Pause” it preserves and validates the core of the warming claim by moving into another side topic like “deep ocean heat” or now here “the wave”. It’s called moving the goal posts.

    Higher co2, models and warming were where they hung their hats, a failure not a “Pause” and yes it was bad science what they claimed for their “cause” from the beginning. So we should talk about more ad hoc bad science as a patch explanation of the original bad science claims? What’s poor about skeptics is that they let the debate be controlled by activist players both obvious and/or ambiguous such as Dr. Curry. This paper is a smokescreen and empowering of the consensus as is the “Pause” meme. The idea that “Pause” needs to be explained and rationalized to validate skepticism is nonsense. AGW “science” failed and natural variability at the very least overcame co2 sensitivity if it even exists in a measurable way. So what we are reading are excuses about how the science is really sound “but” from the people who bet their reputations and lost bigtime already.

    The worst of skepticism as that so many would buy this.

  122. David Archibald says:
    October 10, 2013 at 4:45 pm

    “Well, according to MODTRAN, at the current concentration of 400 ppm each further 100 ppm is worth 0.1 degrees C.”

    Can you direct me to any site you know of which discusses such MODTRAN results? I would like more info. It seems that ought to be a big deal, so I am wondering how it got swept under the rug.

  123. milodonharlani said on October 10, 2013 at 12:06 pm that the Modern Warm Period is likely to peak at a cooler temperature than the Roman Warm Period did. I tried splicing HadCRUT3 onto Loehle’s corrected global temperature reconstruction (a non-tree-ring based one), and see we’re already slightly warmer than the peak of the Medieval Warm Period.

  124. A lot of people here seem to want to cut off their noses to spite their faces. Yes, many people have noted the apparent 60-ish year oscillation in temperatures, which produced an upswing in global temperatures at just the time for the AGW brigades to catch a ride on it, claiming that completely natural process was indicative of CO2-induced warming. But, they weren’t taken seriously because they could not cite a physical mechanism for it.

    Dr. Curry and Dr. Wyatt are providing such a mechanism. This should be a moment of jubilation, not of settling scores.

    I don’t care who gets the credit or recognition. I just want this long nightmare of throwback superstition and primitive nature worship trumping real science to end.

  125. dbstealey says:
    October 10, 2013 at 10:44 am

    What we do know is that we have already lost the propaganda battle: with terms like “pause”, “hiatus”, “lull”, “stall”, and similar words, which imply with certainty that global warming will resume.

    The (neutral) term I suggest we use is PLATEAU.

  126. If “unpredictable climate variability” can create such a divergence from expected results, then how can we rely on the temperature data to model the impact of CO2 with any accuracy? Didn’t our data requirements just substantially increase? If natural variability can mess up the temperature trend for the last couple of decades to such a dramatic extent, how do we know it didn’t also mess up the data we’re using to build the predictive models?

    There are a lot of variables. If some of them drive an acceleration of warming trends, while others are naturally mitigating, how can we ever hope to build a useful model? What if the effects of certain variables have a greater or lesser impact depending on the temperature range? How would we know how to reflect that in the model?

    How do we know we shouldn’t be pumping as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we can in order to forestall and mitigate the inevitable cooling phase of the climate cycle?

    Maybe there is no such thing as a natural climate cycle. Perhaps given enough time the temperature will naturally settle in at a temperature that is a bit warmer than today, and the climate cycles are merely the result of the earth getting whacked with a large asteroid — ringing the earth like a bell, and causing havoc. In this case, if we can avoid getting clobbered, the temperature cycles will gradually become less extreme until we reach stability again.

    Just how do we know, based on a partial temperature history? We just don’t.

    But maybe to be on the safe side we ought to raise taxes, increase the power of government to regulate industry, and transfer some wealth around.

  127. harrydhuffman (@harrydhuffman) says:
    October 10, 2013 at 12:26 pm

    I liked your link but it isn’t a question of “competence” it’s a question of politics. Dr. Curry is a top-down statist with Obama donations recorded. Her function in the climate debate for skeptics is similar to the “Trust Operation” where the Soviets solicited foreign national counter revolutionary funding to overthrow the Soviet but instead were directly supporting it instead;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_Operation

    Dr. Curry is a wasted skeptic asset for the most part if at all.

    Dr. Curry isn’t a skeptic or a reformer, she’s a tool of the consensus. This is as far as the consensus will go in dealing with dissent. The Emmanuel Goldstein purpose of defining what they debate on their own terms of discussion. The fantasy term “The Pause” is a perfect example. So much better then “Total AGW hypothesis failure” in the print sections. We live in a society where one special interest political culture seizes the dictionary and decides what the words mean for a politically desired goal. They pick who are acceptable as dissent also and Dr. Curry serves the purpose. Inferring climate sensitivity is so much more effective than having to prove it empirically and the paper does exactly that. Function served.

    She reflects the weak mindedness of skeptics and why they are on the losing side, hanging by a thread to date. Needless to say I’m sick of imagined skeptics fawning over her statements without a clue or any critical thinking at all as to her positions. The timing of this paper, within a week of the IPCC release and calling for the IPCC to be “put down” but for completely nebulous reasons that have little to do with the political drivers of the AGW and IPCC meme?;

    http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/28/ipcc-diagnosis-permanent-paradigm-paralysis/

  128. “I tried splicing HadCRUT3 onto Loehle’s corrected global temperature reconstruction (a non-tree-ring based one), and see we’re already slightly warmer than the peak of the Medieval Warm Period.”

    What is slightly?
    0.1 C ?
    Assuming that the (Homogenized, adjusted and corrected) HadCRUT3 dataset is an accurate presentation of the real Average Global Temperature and that we can accurately measure the Average Global Temperature of the Medieval Warm Period.
    Yeah, right….

  129. In terms of scientific methodology, Curry and Wyatt have accomplished in their article exactly what Willis has been working toward with his Thermostatic Hypothesis. They have identified a long-term natural process that partially determines temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere and this natural process’s behavior is entirely independent of CO2.

    So, they have broken free of the modeler’s assumptions and they have broken free of claims about “global average temperature.” The Sun is rising.

  130. So Mexican Waves stop Global Warming! And I always thought that football was pointless!

    (That’s Soccer for Americans and Australians.)

  131. Rud Istvan, you talk of sceptics’ self destruction, because they are not buying into a paper which effectively puts down AR5. I find that rather insulting of the sceptical fraternity/sorority here. The fact that AR5 is lousy science doesn’t mean that any paper putting it down is good science. The fundamental principle, which has always applied, is: The wrong result is bad science. The right result for the wrong reason is still bad science.

    If the paper – any paper – is dubious, then it is reasonable to challenge it, even if that indirectly protects AR5 a bit. cwon14 (October 10, 2013 at 5:55 pm) puts it well.

    Donald L. Klipstein s(October 10, 2013 at 6:09 pm) “we’re already slightly warmer than the peak of the Medieval Warm Period”. I doubt that we can tell yet, because you have to compare like with like. The MWP temperatures are valid down to what period of time, and to what accuracy? And in any case, for how long a period would current temperatures need to be higher in order for the statement to be meaningful?

  132. Steve Wilde

    Several years ago you first planted the seed in my mind of the solar oceans atmosphere coupled system.

    I want to thank you for that.

  133. I hate to say it but Dr. Curry comes across in this paper as a closet – or not so closet – warmista. Inter alia, this wave theory offers no explanation for the hugely documented warming and cooling episodes of the past. Rather, this and her recent criticism of the alarmists comes across more as an effort to get them to present their message more effectively so that people will more readily buy into it. In short, it too obviously buys into the AGW argument that this is only a short-term pause in warming, not the beginning of a long-term cooling trend as many are now saying it is.

    I used to post regularly on her blog but gave up on that finally after some of the things she said pointed towards the conclusion I’m drawing here. It might be said that she’s trying to reconcile skeptics and alarmists, but in the first place, that simply can’t be done as things stand – you can’t sit on the fence over an issue like this, it really is pretty close to black and white, not much gray there, and you pretty much have to take a stand, with whatever minor variations on details, but a stand nonetheless against the gross perversion of science – and second, I thought she was much too indulgent of some of the super-alarmists who posted there, never challenging them to back up their assertions.

    The sad part is, I think she really does know that AGW is horse feces, but by reason of political sympathies or maybe even worry about her job, she hasn’t found the cojones to out with it and call AGW the horse feces that it is.

  134. Steve Wilde

    You should be given credit for your early understanding. There are many that know this.

  135. Donald L. Klipstein says:
    October 10, 2013 at 6:09 pm

    The Modern Warm Period is still a long way from peak Medieval Warmth, as shown by proxy data from all over the world. In fact a number of decades in the Medieval WP were hotter than the last two warm cycles of the Modern, to say nothing of the first one in the late 19th century after the end of the LIA.

    Here’s a survey of studies paper from just this year on this topic:

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/mwp_china.pdf

    Many other papers finding the same thing have been linked in comments & posts on this blog over the years.

    If you have a study finding otherwise, please trot it out. Thanks.

  136. Donald L. Klipstein says:
    October 10, 2013 at 6:06 pm

    Based upon what data set did global T peak in 2005? You are aware are you not that GISS & HadCRU have been shamelessly manipulated?

    The warmth of c. 1977 to 1996 was nothing out of the ordinary, requiring no extra-natural explanation. Nor was the super El Nino of 1998. Nor has been the plateau of flatness to cooling since 1996.

    If the average temperature of the lower troposphere was still warming that recently, then why has Antarctic sea & land ice been increasing?

  137. The important observation is, no matter how long this important facet of the climate has been seen, it is now entering the realm of the mainstream academic science literature. Reality is inching closer.

  138. Re: “cojones” mentioned several times above:

    Ahem! Women do not NEED them to be strong. And we certainly do not want any, thank you very much. (flouncing out of the room, nose — in — the — air) #(:))

    Okay, okay, wonderful men of WUWT — I get it. But, seriously, think about it.

  139. As many of us know the cyclic ocean theories have been around for some time. They have been my candidates for the “best” explanation of the recent 100 years since it became obvious the global temps changed with the PDO around 2005. I haven’t read the paper yet but given various comments is appears to be attempting to link the various ocean cycles into a global phenomena. That would be what I would deem as new and interesting.

    While this doesn’t change the fact that many skeptics have been pointing to the oceans for years, it could take the ideas another step forward. Let’s take some time and look at the details before taking positions based on incomplete information.

    Personally, I have been pushing the global cooling until around 2035 claim due to the PDO. I have also been pushing future sea ice increases in the Arctic due to the AMO. Since both of these appears to be part of this global wave it fits right in with my own views.

    Now, does anyone believe this will get any media attention?

  140. Rud Istvan: “She is making predictions which should have everyone here rejoicing, not grousing.”

    What I noticed immediately, which is pretty much when the predictions begin. And that’s what’s refreshing. There should be plenty of time to falsify the hypothesis, no?

    Here in central Arizona we just had a very odd occurance of snow at 6500 feet in early October, with a high temp today 6 degrees below the previous record low high for the day from 1982.

    Prescott similarly beat the record from 1912.

    Interesting times because of the frantic insistence of the catastrophic warming cabal that we’ll fry regardless of evidence to the contrary. Otherwise, it would just be weather.

  141. Richard M

    The media will certainly miss this paper, but the “Team” will certainly not miss this paper.

  142. The paper does not say anything about how this new model explains the pause in global warming, does not say anything explicitly against the IPCC models, it emphasizes that it is not clear how this could be applied to the 21 st century conditions. And the abstract is absolutely unreadable and does not say anything at all about any of the points raised by the authors in their media statements.

  143. The climatology of “oscillations”, a.k.a. averages of pressure from statistical entities that have no synoptical values… Surely that should lead to processes… Not!

  144. Bart says:
    October 10, 2013 at 6:16 pm

    A lot of people here seem to want to cut off their noses to spite their faces. Yes, many people have noted the apparent 60-ish year oscillation in temperatures, which produced an upswing in global temperatures at just the time for the AGW brigades to catch a ride on it, claiming that completely natural process was indicative of CO2-induced warming. But, they weren’t taken seriously because they could not cite a physical mechanism for it.

    Dr. Curry and Dr. Wyatt are providing such a mechanism. This should be a moment of jubilation, not of settling scores.

    And, like the “heat hiding in the ocean” meme, it gives warmists a face-saving way of backing away from CAGW back to AGW. That’s the only way we can get them to dial down their calls for action now.

  145. Wyatt here. Other lengthy posts of mine are at Judith’s site. They may answer some questions that I do not address here. First, Brian H, the quote you posted “there is nothing to tell us that CO2 is doing much to change anything” is grossly taken out of context. The running discussion at Judy’s site had been on what potential influence an external radiative forcing might have on the character of the stadium wave. The short version is that because the wave showed no change in character after about 1780, evidence was not clear on any impact that the linear forcing of ghg might have. on the other hand, a change in forcing by a quasi-oscillatory source would be consonant with network theory, whereby weak forcing of a source whose oscillation tempo was close to that of an internally oscillating index, coupled with that self-oscillator, could entrain the frequency of that intrinsic oscillator. if the oscillator was linked to other oscillators in a synchronized (not to be confused with synchronous) network, then the tempo of the entire network, and therefore the signal propagating through it, could be ‘in step’ with such an external forcing. (See Pikovsky) As the sun weakly forces, and exhibits a cadence similar to that of the stadium wave, I speculate (underline speculate, as the results must go through rigorous review) that this cycle of solar, expounded upon expertly by others on this blog and in juried papers (Scafetta, Soon, and others, for examples), may play a role in nudging the tempo of the synchronized network. Unfortunately, we had to drop solar from this paper, postponing to a future paper. Before we decided that solar’s role on the wave had to be culled from this paper, we had used numerous other solar reconstructions. Different magnitudes of the solar constant did not change the results, results which were quite good. The pattern of co-variability was our only interest. the problem came when we employed the Hoyt/Schatten updated series. it is based on five proxies. its pattern worked well. its variance strong. but unlike the other reconstructions based on tsi or ssn, the phasing of this index hit in a very curious place within the wave order. had it been the only reconstruction used for this analysis, we would have used it, unaware of this oddity. in addition, the geomagnetic ak index also co-varies with the wave, but again, phasing is different from the other reconstructions. these findings surely are speaking to dynamics captured in the solar reconstructions and how those dynamics might interact with different components of the wave, but an idea is just an idea until it can be supported rigorously. this is a goal for the next paper. All this said, I invoked another line of evidence to support this thought that the wave tempo is governed by the low-frequency component of solar. That line of evidence comes from my dissertation work with 300 years of proxy data. I noted that in my that work, the wave signal emerged in 300 years of proxy data, yet prior to ~1780, the cadence of the wave and its amplitude changed. What did not change was the orderly sequence of signal propagation. Could the changing output of the sun have been the source of this observation of strikingly modified amplitude and slightly changed tempo? it could just be bad data. it could be good data but something else. but whatever the cause, it caught my attention. Because the amplitude and tempo of the signal has remained relatively unchanged since ~1800, and this while CO 2 has been increasing, is why I stated that CO2 appears to change nothing (with respect to the wave character). I might be shown otherwise. But with what I have to look at, this is my conclusion, one not mentioned in the paper, as that was not the paper’s focus. It is my speculation based on previous work and shared in this informal dialogue. No more, no less.
    It is important to be clear on what this hypothesis regards. It describes propagation of a signal through a network of synchronized, lagged ocean, ice, and atmospheric indices in a regularly occurring (not periodic) manner, averaging to ~64 years peak to peak during the 20th century. this is what our hypothesis entails. It is not the same as identifying oscillating indices that correlate with one another or of influence o temperature of combined effects of interacting ocean processes. these aspects may be a part of this scenario, but the hypothesis is much broader. To emphasize how long I have batted around this idea, sharing it with others in hopes of gaining traction,
    my first work on this started in 2006. In addition to the dissertation, this is the third paper on the topic, expanding investigation into new realms with each iteration. So it is not about oscillations. It is about a secularly varying trend of a propagating signal, whose implications are broad as far as attribution and potential prediction a decade or two out.
    Had we the data, testing the role of the Southern Hemisphere would be ideal. Obviously the globe does not end at the equator. And someone mentioned ocean heat. That is in our first paper, Wyatt et al 2012 with Kravtsov and Tsonis. Data are limited and caveat ridden , but interesting results, nevertheless.
    It is also worth mention that another paper evolving from the dissertation was reconstructing these network indices from raw simulated model data generated by the CMIP3 data base. We applied the same methods as in the first paper (WKT 2012). We (Wyatt and Peters) used both preindustrial and industrial era runs (with prescribed annual increases in CO2 forcing. We simulate indices instead of using raw data. we do this in all related studies to effectively compress the data, effectively increasing the degrees of freedom. Not one run generated a stadium wave in the model-generated data! All model experiments were used and in most cases, at least a couple of runs of each experiment were carried out. We cannot state that we falsified the models, as that would be declaring our hypothesis to be the right one. Of course, only time and further testing can hope to be the judge of that, but how curious to have found this signal in index network after index network of instrumental and proxy data alike, but not in analogously reconstructed indices based on model simulated data points. In both the WKT and Wyatt/Peters papers, we offer discussion from broad literature reviews to both establish previous work done on links between two oscillatory processes and on work done that might highlight the features critical to signal propagation that may not be feasible to model with today’s suite of ensembles. It may also be that a network linkage may need to be incorporated into the model design. Some strides have been made in this regard. All of this is in the papers cited. Both are available free online now.
    My last comment goes to character assassination. Judy has a very open mind and is rigorous in abiding only by rigorous evidence and testing. I worked with her. i know! When I began my work in 2006 on this rather novel (at the time) idea of signal propagation through synchronized indices of a climate network, few knew what to do with me. This was seven long years ago. Being a much older, and totally non-sponsored (by choice) student, I was given free rein to pursue this idea, with the only requirement that I found others to be willing to consider my idea (and join the committee). First there was Roger Pielke, Sr. He has guided me through the sometimes obstacle ridden path, challenged me to rigorously analyze and support each step along the way. no one was an “easy sell” when this idea hatched and matured. Then I presented the original work (using raw data smoothed five year) to show this propagation sequence and accompanying climate-regime evolution to Kravtsov and Tsonis of UW Milwaukee. They saw potential and came on board. After the first two papers were done, with the daily guidance on statistical applications by Kravtsov, I began investigating how the signal was propagated and sustained. Work done by Frolov et al on Eurasian Arctic sea ice piqued my interest. I explored its role in the wave sequence. I contacted Judy. She took interest in the work and joined the rather large committee. After earning the degree in 2012, I began putting together a paper based on the Arctic ice piece in my dissertation. Frolov et al, Zarkhov, and Klyashtorin and Lyubushin were all inspirational. They, and many, many others are cited liberally in the text. Point here, I was seeking a mechanism. Not the fuel to drive the intrinsic quasi oscillatory character, but the mechanism of propagation. Anthropogenic contribution was not the focus. We removed the linear trend to highlight MD variability, and in the process, certainly removed much of the ghg, but, no claim was made in the paper that we had removed the linear trend with the assumption that we were removing the full co2 fingerprint. The PR piece is the only source for that suggestion. Anyway, the point is that the pursuit was driven by the desire to understand network behavior in climate. If co2 played an obvious role in the wave behavior, we’d be the first to say so. Judy came on as co-author with not one mention of AGW or IPCC. When our work was done and results evident, it appeared clear that of the two 20th century T lulls, both coincided with the downturns of the low-frequency NHT trend. That it might suggest influence on any longterm linear trend, whatever the source or the collection of sources of that trend. The paper was published by total coincidence the week of the IPCC release. We had hoped for a shorter process, but review was rigorous, making for a much better paper, but much later publication date than we had hoped. No stone was left unturned or left unchallenged. Thus, the timing is coincidental. Assigning motive to Judy’s comments regarding the implications of our study’s findings seems unproductive, not to mention unfounded. I urge you to read the manuscript. It is posted at Judy’s site. The PDF of the publisher’s version is also available, yet behind a pay wall. I apologize for the length of this entry. There were so many comments that indicated that many had not read, just assumed. It is hard to convey a complex story with all the checks and balances described in a press release. I hope this memo helps and that you ultimately see the complete body of work for what it is – something intended to study the natural low-frequency component of climate variability with no attempt to support or refute AGW.

  146. dbstealey says:
    October 10, 2013 at 10:44 am

    What we do know is that we have already lost the propaganda battle: with terms like “pause”, “hiatus”, “lull”, “stall”, and similar words, which imply with certainty that global warming will resume.

    Should we propose that the “pause” could be to global warming what menopause is to reproductive ability?

    The global warming menopause?

    Or the global warming andropause, so Dr. Curry and Dr. Wyatt don’t think we are picking on them.

    As in: “Sorry, darling, I am in the first 15 years of my andropause. But don’t worry, I’ll be back to full strength in the 2030s.”

  147. A hilarious timing of our comments, Dr. Wyatt. No “character assassination” on my mind. Just a little play on the semantics of our public discourse.

    [Charles: Please delete my duplicate post. I think I found a wordpress bug.]

  148. “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.”

    There were people here on WUWT saying this 6 or 8 years ago. Maybe more!

    There was even a scientist on a video back then, explaining the whole warming thing to an audience and who – on video – realized this ‘stadium wave’ thing and who said, more or less, “Hey, I should look into that!”

    I’ve repeated it here multiple times, but I take no credit. I actually think it is sad that it has taken this long for anyone to put it into a paper:

    There is an inclining trend, with phases similar to sine waves, but on the incline. So every half cycle the slope is less, while the other half is greater. It explains the 30-year-cycles and Phil Jones’ “other” and “similar” slopes (remember his testimony after Climategate?).

    1880 – 1910 – 1940 – 1970 – 2000 are all beginnings of “up” slopes (and the end of “down” slopes). The next “up” slope doesn’t come till 2030. People here have said that over and over and over again. We didn’t need Judy Curry to tell us this. But it IS time someone said it in a journal. Finally.

    THERE IS NOTHING NEW ABOUT THIS – other than that a climate person put it down in a paper. And putting the name “stadium wave” to it. It could just as well have been a step wave, except that already means something altogether different.

  149. Hahahaha – And with the up slope not due till 2030, the warmist scientists – and Al Gore – are going to all be heavy drinkers by then! 17 more years of hiatus!

    Trenberth is going to be crying long before 2030.

  150. This is a refreshing paper that is looking in the right direction for the decadal-century scale climate oscillation – a network of nonlinear oscillators and synchrony between them. Wyatt and Curry should be applauded for this.

    It was said by Winston Churchill that the USA always does the right thing in the end, after they have exhausted all the alternatives. The same might be said of climate science – after all the wild goose-chase dead ends have been fully played out, what will remain will be nonlinear / nonequilibrium oscillators and emergent pattern formation plus Lyapunov stability of such systems.

    This well-known video on metronomes nicely illustrates synchrony between oscillators:

  151. Marcia Wyatt says:
    October 10, 2013 at 10:49 pm

    Thanks for dropping by and posting, and for the great research.

    Some years ago there was a poster here who used the name “Its always Marcia, Marcia” – that was not you I guess?

  152. “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.”

    Okay, now.. . . channel Jon Stewart, (those of us who are Liberals, anyway!) and

    Self-organizing!? But. . . But. . . But!. . . BUT! But ciimate is CHAOTIC! [affect a confused desperation...]

    It can’t BE organized! [look into the camera...]

    CAN IT???? [cue audience silence, as the camera zooms fully on his left eye iris... and fade to a beach in the Seychelles, with slowly scrolling graphic: "In the year 2125, and the sea level has risen 12 cms since the year 2000"]

  153. @steveta_uk Oct 10, 2013 at 10:12 am:
    “Does the paper suggest how strong the resumed warming signal post 2030 might be?”

    As Phil Jones himself said, the slopes of the 1990 increase is pretty indistinguishable from the previous two increases.

    So, expect a similar rise AND duration.

    We are STILL coming out of the LIA, so the climate is doing what climate after ice ages does: IT WARMS UP OVER TIME. We are still in the middle of that warming. When will it end? Who knows? How many more stadium waves? 5? 10? 100? It will end when it ends.

  154. @ Mickey Reno (October 10, 2013 at 2:16 pm)

    You really think eliminating IPCC would somehow magically correct the patently false assumptions made by mainstream climate “science” (e.g. Judy’s “internal” narrative)? Get the problem by the root or it will grow back in new form.

    – –

    @ Salvatore Del Prete

    Marcia’s brilliant contribution IMHO was figure 4 of WKT2011. There was nothing new in it. It was the way she (with some talented help from K & T) pulled all the threads together into 1 concise summary of a coupled bundle. (Contrast that with some favorite “contributors” here who spew 10s of 1000s of words to say almost nothing.)

    New results on solar/ozone-gradient coherence forthcoming Salvatore …

  155. I very much support and appreciate the paper from Marcia and Judith 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.”

  156. Friends:

    In my opinion the best and most important post in this thread has been provided at October 10, 2013 at 5:15 pm by Jim Clarke.

    He states the present reality which we all need to face and to accept if we are to assist rapid overthrow of the zombie AGW-scare.

    I copy his post here to avoid people who missed it needing to find it.

    Look…we can all see how the game of science works. As the consensus science collapses, there will be mainstream scientists who will repackage what skeptics have been saying for two decades. Some of them may be the very ones who ridiculed and made fun of the skeptics. They will act like they have discovered something new. The rest of the club will then pretend that it is something new and give these fraudsters all the credit, and the chairs and the pensions. Judith Curry may be the first and the least offensive of this group.

    If you are a citizen or ‘outside the mainstream’ skeptical scientist, don’t expect any recognition, at least not your lifetime. Take heart in the knowledge that you were right all along, that the global con known as CAGW is collapsing and that you probably had more to do with it than the world will ever know.

    We appreciate your efforts and thank you!

    Richard

  157. Congratulations with a very interesting paper! In addition to its own merit (quality work), its main content is a clear testable hypotheses with qualities rarely seen in climate research. As far as I can see:
    1) (I believe) it has the necessary simplifying assumptions described
    2) The predictions are deduceable from theory and initial conditions
    3) The outcome is UNLIKELY (The probablilty they will occur for trivial or unknown reasons is low)

    Cassanders
    In Cod we trust

  158. The “pause” is nothing more than the statistical impact of UHI and HADCRUT adjustments in the years up to 1995 introducing a temperature gradient in the years 1950 to 1995.

    CO2 induced global warming is a myth. I recently spent some time looking at the thought experiment “Maxwell’s Demon” and it became clear to me why it is a myth. Look it up on Wikipedia and you will likely come to the same conclusions I did.

  159. “The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s,” said Wyatt

    Whether or not the stadium wave signal hypothesis is correct Wyatt is making the assumption that the recent plateau/decline in global temperature is a “pause” and not the start of another cycle of cooling. What us the evidence for a “pause”?

  160. Ignoring these quasi-cyclical effects and solar relations has also lead to bias in the analysis of feedback mechanisms. The resulting over-estimation of feedbacks means that global warming outside of the range that is beneficial simply aren’t plausible.

  161. Solomon Green:

    Your post at October 11, 2013 at 4:46 am asks

    Whether or not the stadium wave signal hypothesis is correct Wyatt is making the assumption that the recent plateau/decline in global temperature is a “pause” and not the start of another cycle of cooling. What us the evidence for a “pause”?

    The literal answer to your question is that there has been no discernible trend in global temperature at 95% confidence for at least the last 17 years but there was a discernible trend of global warming at 95% confidence for the previous 17 years.

    However, the word “pause” implies an interruption to the global warming when the evidence only indicates that discernible global warming has stopped.

    I am interpreting your question to be a query of the implication provided by the word “pause”, and I address that interpretation as follows.

    The word “pause” implies that global warming will resume. However, that implication is not justified by the empirical evidence because a discernible trend of either global warming or global cooling can be expected to occur in future. Hence, the word “pause” implies knowledge of the future which does not exist. And that implied knowledge can be claimed to be inappropriate in a scientific discussion of the cause(s) of the existing lack of a discernible trend.

    This brings us to the issue of paradigms. Scientists have a prevailing view of the appropriate theory (or theories) to adopt when conducting an analysis. Their choice of theory (or theories) is their paradigm. In hindsight it can be apparent that scientists may adhere strongly to a paradigm long after it has been surpassed by new understandings. For example, after the oxidation theory of combustion was experimentally demonstrated it did not supplant the phlogiston theory of combustion until a generation of scientists had passed away.

    The prevailing paradigm in ‘climate science’ is that global temperature change is driven by radiative forcing changes induced by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) notably CO2 in the atmosphere. And GHG concentrations have continued to rise so according to that paradigm the global temperature will rise. Clearly, according to that paradigm the cessation of discernible global warming must be an interruption to the warming; i.e. it is a “pause”.

    However, many people – including me – have never accepted that paradigm so we object to the word “pause” because it accepts that paradigm as a given.

    This goes to the crux of the paper under discussion. The so-called “pause” is not explicable according to the radiative forcing paradigm alone and, therefore, the paper applies a modification to the paradigm; i.e. natural variations in the climate system can oscillate to add to or negate the warming. According to this modification the “stadium wave” has negated the warming for the last 17 years and will continue to negate it for decades in the future.

    It follows from the above that the paper has two serious implications.

    Firstly, and most importantly, the paper is a fall-back from the radiative forcing paradigm alone. This is typical of how paradigm shifts usually occur: the old paradigm is repeatedly modified to include unavoidable realities until the paradigm is replaced by another theory. In this case, those of us who always rejected the radiative forcing paradigm have consistently argued that natural variations in the climate were a more plausible explanation of the global warming that happened in the twentieth century (some GHG warming probably happened but was too small for it to be discernible).

    So, the paper is a move from the radiative forcing paradigm alone. It incorporates some of the natural variation which those who refute that paradigm claim is responsible for discernible variations in global temperature.

    Secondly, the “stadium wave” removes the suggestion of dangerous AGW. Assuming the modified radiative forcing paradigm is correct, it follows that the present “pause” was preceded by a period of warming which was enhanced by the “stadium wave”. Hence, the warming effect of GHGs over that warming period must be at most only half of the warming which occurred.

    I hope this answer is clear and what you wanted.

    Richard

  162. “Roger Knights says:
    October 10, 2013 at 6:27 pm

    ” dbstealey says:
    October 10, 2013 at 10:44 am

    “What we do know is that we have already lost the propaganda battle: with terms like “pause”, “hiatus”, “lull”, “stall”, and similar words, which imply with certainty that global warming will resume.

    “The (neutral) term I suggest we use is PLATEAU.”

    I like the term “rollercoaster.” But maybe that’s a tad “over the top.”

  163. Oh goody another model. Who wants to bet against this one failing to predict the future just like every other climate model? Give it a rest people–you haven’t a clue as to what the planet is doing.

  164. Dear Richard Courtney,

    Thanks for a very clear, explicit and sensible explanation. I found the second conclusion that you drew from the paper particularly interesting.

    My only quibble with you is that I was brought up to consider that a “hypothesis” only gradated to a “theory” when there was sufficient experimental or observational evidence to justify the promotion. So far as I am concerned Wyatt’s proposition is still only a hypothesis.

  165. Since “global warming” and “climate change” didn’t pan out, perhaps its time to try “rogue waves” as the next climate scare.

  166. The adjusted temperature record shows a pause of 17 years.
    Satellite data shows a pause of 30 years
    The Central England temperature record shows a pause of 300 years.

    What we seem to have developing now is a new form of climate scam where scientists claim they can explain certain features of the temperature record when there is no agreement between different forms of the same record. I call BS on all of them. I think they should start by properly measuring the climate accurately and then come back to us when they have sensible observations they can use on which to based their science.

  167. That any researcher (independent, corporate, Ivory Tower, or amateur) has to sugar coat and pussy foot around important folks from either side of this debate (and I believe there is a bit of that pussy footing in the current paper) is testimony of the potential for research biased behavior in that field of study.

    That any researcher (of any type above) feels emotionally connected to their endeavor is testimony of the potential for biased behavior in that researcher (and we sure get a lot of that here among some of our amateur as well as some of our published folks).

    That is not to say that data and plausible mechanism should not be forced upon us in order to measure the current or a pet paradigm. I am saying that any and all evidence of emotional “clinging” to pet/popular/preferred theories (solar, sun, AGW, Standing Wave, etc) should be removed from one’s public speaking and even more importantly from one’s private laboratory endeavors (and I do not believe there is evidence of that in the current paper). Instead you should be steadfastly and unemotionally trying to refute your own work.

    Measure your emotional response to and during research. If it is low, good. Continue digesting/following where the research data leads. If it is high, you should proceed with caution. You are at risk of dismissing valuable information or jumping on an unsupported bandwagon.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2917255/

    Regarding the pussy footing/sugar coating, that AGW/CO2 ghg had to be mentioned at all in the paper still speaks to the sad state of affairs in my opinion.

  168. To clarify, I find the dry, unemotional tone of the paper as well as comments penned by the researchers to be refreshing. Emotions stir up mud and cloud accuracy. Color commentary bad. Technical comments good. Clarity of thought with data, mechanism, and straightforward syntax is ear candy to me.

  169. Is Dr Curry to be compared w/the likes of Mann, Hansen, Jones, Trenberth, Wigley, Connelly, Schmidt, etc, etc, etc? Unfair. She has an uncensored website and openly discusses the issues, at the very least.

  170. Stephen Wilde, Joe Bastardi, Joe D’ Aleo and countless others have all talked about what Judith Curry and Marcia Wyatt ,are trying to convey, as some kind of a new discovery.

    They are trying to make it seem as if they have discovered something new, when in reality it is nothing new at all.

  171. Colorado Wellington says:

    Should we propose that the “pause” could be to global warming what menopause is to reproductive ability?

    Sure, that might work with “pause”. But then how would you explain “hiatus”, “lull”, “stall”, and similar words?

    Pochas suggests “plateau”. That might work.

    This puts the current climate in perspective. All the wild eyed arm-waving is based on slide #1. But by slide #3, we see that current temperaures are very benign.

    [the gif takes a few seconds to load]

  172. What they say:It is important to be clear on what this hypothesis regards. It describes propagation of a signal through a network of synchronized, lagged ocean, ice, and atmospheric indices in a regularly occurring (not periodic) manner, averaging to ~64 years peak to peak during the 20th century. this is what our hypothesis

    Which means nothing., in my opinion.

  173. Marcia Wyatt

    I greatly look forward to reading your paper in full. I find nonlinear oscillatory phenomena fascinating and I am sure they are a much under-appreciated player in many natural phenomena (I have published in the biology literature on nonlinear emergent pattern in a certain genetic bone pathology). 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”?

    You are the best news climate science has had for a long time. Thanks again for dropping by.

  174. Any time any one tries to say one certain aspect of the climate system, is the cause for the climate system and resorts to a short period of time to show why this is true makes me lose interest quickly.

  175. If the Arctic is about to freeze up again, then the huge Arctic port Russia is building to serve trade with China using the Arctic passage is one giant miscalculation. The land grab in the world courts by the nations with Arctic borders, being pursued to establish oil drilling rights, loses punch. There are a lot of powerful interests being challenged by this research.

  176. Ian Wilson says:
    October 10, 2013 at 5:03 pm

    I am with Stephen Wild on this one.

    This paper is a classic case of some one in the “in-crowd” saying exactly what people in the “out-crowd” having being saying for close to a decade (or more) and being told by the “in-crowd” that they are “paradigm-breakers”.

    Indeed.

  177. Pamela, your failure is inability to distinguish between grey and black-&-white. On black-&-white issues (not to be deliberately confused with grey ones) what you overlook and underestimate is the social injustice and consequent backlash of abusing authority to aggressively assert that 1+1 does not equal 2, a devilish act which proves beyond all shadow of a doubt the social intractability of a politically corrupted discussion context. When authority darkly refuses to acknowledge 1+1=2, we can safely bet our lives and the lives of our family members that the multifaceted discussion cannot be neatly contained as you naively suggest.

  178. Pamela Gray says:
    October 11, 2013 at 8:00 am
    To clarify, I find the dry, unemotional tone of the paper as well as comments penned by the researchers to be refreshing. Emotions stir up mud and cloud accuracy. Color commentary bad. Technical comments good. Clarity of thought with data, mechanism, and straightforward syntax is ear candy to me.
    =====
    Ditto for her comments over at Curry’s. She seems to have a scientist’s temperament, which is a rare thing in climate science these days.

  179. @ Salvatore Del Prete

    During the past few months I have come to regard some of your commentary (not all of it) as among the most strategic being volunteered at WUWT. That’s part of the reason why I make the time to assertively direct the following candid comments your way.

    Beware paradox. Have you ever solved a puzzle where you had to take what initially may have appeared to naive onlookers to be an inadvisable step backwards in order to reorient towards a more efficient path forward?

    Even if there are limits to how far the combination of Marcia’s instincts & abilities can propel her solar-terrestrial-climate explorations, holistic vision has enabled her to concisely summarize the coupled terrestrial bundle (of temperature, mass, & velocity) — pointed out inefficiently by many others before herin a single image (figure 4 of WKT2011).

    THAT’s what makes her contributions special even though her solar-terrestrial-climate vision is definitely incomplete. For that one concisely potent contribution, Marcia earned from me a kind of acceptance that can probably endure many other potentially interfering darkly negative things.

    Don’t underestimate the power & utility (to others) of that single 2011 illustration just because you have some well-founded objections to the patently incorrect “internal” spin controversially injected by Judy (who relatively easily brings needed resources & attention to the table we should keep in mind…)

    Take the useful elements and discard the rest. (As I’ve been doing for the past few years) I suggest giving Marcia due credit for the brilliantly summarized element she has productively contributed.

    Sincerely

  180. Over at Jo Nova’s site one commenter mentioned that Judith Curry and her husband run a consultancy advising companies on climate change mitigation. This all would just seem to be advertsing for business by raising her profile. As ever, follow the money.
    BTW I have no respect for JC for her previous stance on skeptics.

  181. Marcia Wyatt on October 10, 2013 at 10:49 pm said,

    “. . . I hope this memo helps and that you ultimately see the complete body of work for what it is – something intended to study the natural low-frequency component of climate variability with no attempt to support or refute AGW.”

    – – – – – – – –

    Marcia Wyatt,

    Thank you for following this thread and actively engaging here.

    First, congratulations to Judith and you on your work product. Peer review of it and a journal publishing speak nothing to it scientifically, in my view. It is only your work product itself that speaks scientifically.

    I can see your point that Judith’s and your paper quite literally does not “attempt to support or refute AGW” within a certain way of carefully parsing its content.

    Stepping back to view the broader context of the IPCC centric Alarming AGW ‘theory’ dialog for the past 20+ years, Judith’s and your paper does implicitly acknowledge the validity of CAGW ‘theory’s’ coexistence with your ‘stadium wave’ concept. Why do you even implicitly acknowledge it if you are both neutral to it?.

    You are not neutral.

    John

  182. OldWeirdHarold says:
    October 11, 2013 at 12:56 pm

    Pamela Gray says:
    October 11, 2013 at 8:00 am

    Harold and Pamela, Dr. Curry is a political hack that plays every side to the middle. This is well timed piece of climate magic dust to take the heat off the failed co2 sensitivity claims of generations of fellow warmers and the whopper that is the IPCC AR5. She also called for the IPCC to be “put down” last week if only for lame and abstract reasons that miss the chief crimes of the IPCC operative process by about thirty miles. Regardless it infuriated some of her warming peers and now she switches the side of the plate and throws them a validating distraction. It was all well timed and coordinated. For all the preaching of communication and moderation she remains tied to the AGW meme by the hip. Here we are again with more models and abstractions, essentially off the main topic but validating many authority entities that need elimination such as models and the IPCC. It presumes the validity of the hypothesis and as many have pointed out there remains no empirical evidence at all to support the basic AGW claim of warming on higher co2.

    Skeptic bed-wetting is perhaps more damaging than the fanatics promoting climate alarmism.
    Dr. Curry is effectively muddying the debate with irrelevant in-conclusion and “uncertainty” while minimizing the main failures of the AGW science talking points. There is nothing innocent about it either, it’s contrived for a political objective. It’s what she does. The “Pause” being the latest pregnant with presumption term she is promoting. The “Pause” is a nonsense concept on the face of it. Climate and weather fluctuate, if you model all the forces and weight them send us a memo. It’s a term to humor defeated warmist meme people including herself.

    Maybe the next bone will be thrown to skeptics who will hail her a hero, after awhile you figure out what she is doing. She’s a strong believer in central planning climate expert authority, a truly absurd concept from the onset. If she doesn’t appear Full-Moon green crazed it only makes her more dangerous then her peers, more effective. She is cut from the same cloth, unequivocally. Study, fund, legislate authority over others. Who needs evidence of the AGW claims?

  183. The ‘stadium wave’ makes sense to me. Last year when looking at the JG/U tree ring study, all of the long term charts which I had viewed came into focus in a fashion similar to a slideshow. The first impression that came to mind was that there was a moving wave as either the cool or warm cycle advanced over time around the NH, and that not all regions participated in the current cycle. If a close approximation of where we are in the current cycle could be established, then the potential for predicting the movement of the trend could be possible.

  184. Marcia and Judith have apparently ascertained that the transmission of the oceanic oscillation through the climate system takes the form of a stadium wave.

    That is new and useful.

    The existence of an oceanic signal on a 60 year timescale has been known for decades so nothing new there.

    However I think they are still stuck on the idea that the wave evens up over time for a zero net effect so in a sense it is indeed a defensive paper for AGW theory.

    However, as I pointed out over at Climate etc. there is still the issue of the MWP, LIA, Current Warm Period and that phase to phase temperature stepping that shows up in the observations.

    One can only achieve those characteristics if there is another, longer solar induced periodicity upon which the stadium wave is superimposed.

    So, although their recognition of the stadium wave is good they still lag behind the analyses of myself and others.

    That said, Marcia was positive about the ideas in my New Climate Model (seeing it as complementary to her findings rather than being inconsistent with them) so I get the impression that she at least is open minded as to where this might lead. I’d guess that having given support to Marcia, Judith is now of the same view.

  185. Mike Borgelt (October 11, 2013 at 1:23 pm) wrote:
    “Over at Jo Nova’s site one commenter mentioned that Judith Curry and her husband run a consultancy advising companies on climate change mitigation. This all would just seem to be advertsing for business by raising her profile. As ever, follow the money.”

    I have always suspected that this is what’s behind the relentlessly pushed “uncertainty” narrative she incessantly drives. The “internal” narrative is strictly ruled out (in the mathematical sense) by earth rotation & global atmospheric angular momentum records constrained by the laws of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum (what idiot goes up against that combo? = plain stupid).

    Confused clients might naturally feel a need (“must haves” in retail lingo) to buy more outlook scenarios (yes I have a lot of diverse private sector business experience, including with underhanded sales tactics). I wonder if anyone has explored the pricing structure. For example, do clients pay more for more scenarios &/or more detailed contingency tables?

    Very comically — in an entertaining display of pure hypocrisy — the passionate “deep uncertainty” advocate is stubbornly (and foolishly) certain about one thing: that natural climate variations are “internal”. Quite revealing. I hope everyone is capable of independently realizing that no stronger support for the IPCC reaching it’s 100th birthday could possibly be shown.

    Marcia Wyatt is an independent in the strongest sense of the word. I sternly advise commentators to NOT attempt to conflate Marcia’s sensible explorations & contributions with Judy Curry’s power politics &/or business antics.

    The alliance looks practical; there’s something different in it for each of them. Marcia’s passion is exploring and understanding nature. (Some of you may not be aware of her background in geology.) I might be willing to feign more respect for Judy if she would simply drop the single strictly indefensible word “internal”. If she stubbornly holds on to it, THAT will indeed be deeply informative about exactly what kind of a person we’re dealing with.

  186. Friends:

    I write in defence of Judith Curry. Some people here have accused her of being dishonest in her climate views. I disagree with those accusations.

    For a time I posted in threads on her blog and only desisted when I suffered persistent stalking from a troll which became intolerable. During that time she used her blog to discern views of climate science which would be useful in formulating her thoughts in preparation for her making a presentation to a US Congressional Hearing.

    I made a long post on her blog which explained what I perceive to be the problems of climate science. Simply, I argued and explained that academic research lacks the oversight and accountability of commercial and industrial research with resulting severe flaws in the quality and error correction of the products of ‘climate science’. Her written presentation to that Hearing contained a section which was almost verbatim the same as my post.

    I have consistently disputed AGW since the early 1980s. But Judith Curry – who accepts AGW – was willing to accept my views, to adopt them, and to present them to the US Congress as being valid criticism of climate science by “climate change skeptics”.

    That is not the behaviour of a “political hack”, a “fifth columnist” or a dishonest scientist. It is the behaviour of a ‘seeker after truth’ who is willing to be convinced by sound arguments from anyone.

    Richard

  187. This authoritative work on the internal nonlinear cycles of ocean-driven climate has had an illuminating effect on the climate debate especially here at WUWT. Its as if a few large rocks have been rolled and a crowd of creepy bugs unaccustomed to the light are scurrying here and there.

    Two groups are unhappy with the illucidation of natural oscillation patterns in climates. One is the AGW community, crowding anxiously to Judith Curry’s site, seeking reassurance that they can still have their CO2 heating catastrophe. The other group agitated by the harsh glare of this strengthening oscillation paradigm is WUWT’s star-gazers alliance, the motley crew of astrophysical wiggle-weavers and astrologers. Internal climate oscillation to them is like radiodating and palaeontology to 6-day creationists.

    So the real climate debate is not between AGW and the rest – instead it is between emerging clarity and reason about internal oceanic climate oscillation, on the one hand, and a die-hard alliance of watermelon AGW doom-mongers and the star-gazers on the other. Both of whom require a climate system impossibly passive to external forcing, and are in denial of the basic science of complex systems.

  188. Nice post richardscourtney, I concur.

    Marcia Wyatt made a comment either here or at Judiths blog that solar influences and others were considered in her paper but the reviewers asked that they be removed for consideration in a future work.

  189. Stephen Wilde says:
    October 11, 2013 at 2:15 pm
    One can only achieve those characteristics if there is another, longer solar induced periodicity upon which the stadium wave is superimposed.
    ———————————————————–
    There are several solar influences of varying periods, why would you assume that J Curry or M Wyatt have not considered them?

    Some of the above comments appear to arrive at some very negative conclusions about the motives of the 2 authors. I have read the above article and I can see no validity for assuming such negative stances.

  190. Stephen Wilde says: “However, as I pointed out over at Climate etc. there is still the issue of the MWP, LIA, Current Warm Period and that phase to phase temperature stepping that shows up in the observations.”.

    Spot on. The paper addresses the minor variations – the ~60-year ‘cycle’ – and avoids the main game. It does go further than identifying the fact that the ~60-year ‘cycle’ exists, and it really is a step forward for the scientific literature and I expect much of it to prove valuable in future, but the fact is that they don’t know the mechanisms (they suggest some but these need verifying), they don’t know the amplitudes of the cycles, and they don’t know what prevents the cycles from declining. Hence they can’t use it meaningfully in models, and they can’t use any of it for prediction. And it is worth repeating that they were not studying the longer cycles, ie. the ones that really change the climate (MWP, LIA etc), or your ‘temperature stepping’.

    One can only achieve those characteristics if there is another, longer solar induced periodicity upon which the stadium wave is superimposed.”.

    Yes, but I am wary of the ‘only’ and the ‘solar induced’.
    —–
    richardscourtney – I too would like to commend your defence of Judith Curry.

  191. goldminor, asks “There are several solar influences of varying periods, why would you assume that J Curry or M Wyatt have not considered them? ”. The answer is in Marcia Wyatt’s comment (October 10, 2013 at 10:49 pm) : “Unfortunately, we had to drop solar from this paper, postponing to a future paper‘.

  192. Kudos to Marcia Wyatt and Judith Curry.
    I could not finish reading this thread because of all the nutballs that are unable to appreciate what it she has done.

  193. Gilbert, I agree. There have been entirely too many nasty, non-substantive, personal attacks on this thread. Sadly, an opportunity for reasoned discourse wasted by foam-at-the-mouthers with nothing to say.

    This blog is going to end up in the toilet if some of this doesn’t get reigned in.

  194. dbstealey says:
    October 11, 2013 at 10:41 am

    Colorado Wellington says:

    Should we propose that the “pause” could be to global warming what menopause is to reproductive ability?

    Sure, that might work with “pause”. But then how would you explain “hiatus”, “lull”, “stall”, and similar words?

    Pochas suggests “plateau”. That might work.

    Actually, in this thread, I first suggested that word. It has been used several times before this thread by others on this site. I’m posting now to suggest a couple of refinements in its spelling-usage:

    Plateau’d = stalled, halted, paused.
    Plateau-ing = stalling, halting, pausing.

  195. rogerknights on October 11, 2013 at 10:07 pm

    dbstealey says:
    October 11, 2013 at 10:41 am

    Colorado Wellington says:

    Should we propose that the “pause” could be to global warming what menopause is to reproductive ability?

    Sure, that might work with “pause”. But then how would you explain “hiatus”, “lull”, “stall”, and similar words?

    Pochas suggests “plateau”. That might work.

    Actually, in this thread, I first suggested that word. It has been used several times before this thread by others on this site. I’m posting now to suggest a couple of refinements in its spelling-usage:

    Plateau’d = stalled, halted, paused.
    Plateau-ing = stalling, halting, pausing.

    – – – – – – – – –

    rogerknights (& dbstealey & Colorado Wellington & Pochas),

    I suggest the more objective terminology to use is that which Richard Lindzen recently uses. He called the ~17 year GASTA time series period ‘not warming’.

    It is elegant and not misleading in any way.

    John

  196. dalyplanet says (October 11, 2013 at 6:41 pm) wrote:
    “Marcia Wyatt made a comment either here or at Judiths blog that solar influences and others were considered in her paper but the reviewers asked that they be removed for consideration in a future work.”

    You don’t need to wait for a future publication of someone else to learn for yourself. Just gather up all of the solar reconstructions (some of which primarily indicate solar properties other than TSI) and do the analyses yourself. If you’re functionally numerate, you’ll easily see within an hour why this did NOT make publication.

    It’s easy enough to re-conceptualize to achieve consistency with observed earth rotation & atmospheric angular momentum.

    There’s a lot more to this story, but restraint is the most important human capacity…

    – –

    @ phlogiston

    Like it or not your models aren’t free to violate the laws of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum. Your models NEED to be able to reproduced well-constrained statistical properties of earth rotation & global atmospheric angular momentum records. THIS IS NON-NEGOTIABLE.

  197. Looks like real science to me. Hypothesis developed using statistical analysis and a clear prediction which can be measured is the outcome.

    The test of their theory is the next 30 years. Well, it can certainly be refuted in that time period, but it may survive longer than that.

    How about doing the same for a multicentennial timescale, or are the drivers of that beat not yet known yet??

  198. There are a lot of commentators who don’t seem to realize that they’ve already had a few years to familiarize themselves with the core insight emphasized in the new (2013) paper.

    See figure 4 here:
    Wyatt, M.G.; Kravtsov, S.; & Tsonis, A.A. (2011). Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and Northern Hemisphere’s climate variability. Climate Dynamics. doi: 10.1007/s00382-011-1071-8.

    For those who don’t have a copy of the 2011 paper, its figure 4 also appears as figure 1 on this poster: https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kravtsov/www/downloads/Presentations2010-2011/AMO_AGU10.pdf

  199. Paul Vaughan says:
    October 11, 2013 at 2:19 pm

    I do not agree with your post but I do understand it. I doubt that more than a few understand it because you do not clarify the importance of the word ‘internal’ as it appears in Curry’s work or posts. I too believe that the word ‘internal’ is very important in the currently raging debate but it would be foolish for me to attempt to state your view on the matter.

  200. richardscourtney says:
    October 11, 2013 at 2:52 pm

    Good for you, Richard. I cannot fathom why anyone would distrust Judith Curry. She is as old school as it gets, a “two-handed scientist.”

  201. Steve Garcia says:
    October 11, 2013 at 12:30 am

    “We are STILL coming out of the LIA, so the climate is doing what climate after ice ages does: IT WARMS UP OVER TIME. We are still in the middle of that warming. When will it end? Who knows?”
    —————

    And when will the proponents of CAGW admit that they have “hijacked” all of the interglacial “warming up” beginning with their 1880 Temperature Records?

    “Who know?” My guess is they never will admit to it.

    And given the fact that the proponents of CAGW can’t explain the “pause” in their calculated “percentage” increases/decreases in Average Surface Temperatures ….. it won’t surprise me if they switch to a “percentile” ranking for all of their future Surface Temperature claims.

    That’s how Public School Educators solved their “pausing” problems.

  202. Mike Jonas says:
    October 11, 2013 at 8:01 pm
    ————————————-
    Thanks for pointing out her comment. I had skipped through a portion of the comments.

  203. Carrick says:
    October 11, 2013 at 9:55 pm

    The people who are really saying nothing, “the nutballs” are those claiming the AGW debates are motivated by “science” not opinion. Largely political opinion.

    Psychology is a “science” as well, I doubt most people serious in the field would contrive a theory for massive global authority and regulations based on a non-empirical “idea” in psychology. Yet climate science consensus is far closer to such a reality and yes Dr. Curry is a net supporter of such authority.

    Is it speculation why a paper affirming models and warming theory is issued a week after she states the IPCC should be “put down”? Of course it is. Is there more to the paper than what I and others are focusing on? Of course. Could it all be random coincidence in the timing of events? Perhaps. Is it speculation Dr. Curry plays both sides like a harp? No, that’s pretty well confirmed by many observations. There are of course many sides and opinions other than the pro vs. anti AGW agenda’s. There are many subset warmers like Lomborg or Curry. There are many shades of warmists and skeptics alike. Do I think the term “the Pause” is anything other than another politically motivated concoction? No, I don’t.

    Unless other evidence is presented I don’t think “following the money” reflects Dr. Curry at all. Sure they might have a financial benefits in “uncertainty” but I have no doubt this is her actual belief. Dr. Curry believes in central authority on climate “policy”, it’s her right and she net wins economically in such a system but I suspect she would believe it even if she was going to lose. I think many academics define themselves internally on their core beliefs. That they managed to make a buck in the process isn’t primary at the higher end. I could say as much about Al Gore who is an actual climate hustler and scammer (go review the Chicago carbon exchange history and insider sales before bankruptcy), there is control and money. AGW is largely a political belief system, it’s about control. Money might be a perk but not the main event for many.

    At times, Dr. Curry acts like a foil to hardline AGW advocates, that are all too real. She also offers aid and assistance to them by diffusing essentials of the climate debate. Creating false equivocations about the sides and what is core about the AGW movement. Her own politics, Obama donor, are carefully minimized and that preserves her influence on many skeptical groups. Like it or not Dr. Curry has a place in the current debate and she exercises influence through her statements. She’s is at least a former consensus insider to the annoyance of current consensus advocates. People have every right to question her statements and actions and more importantly the carefully honed ambiguity of her imagined moderation, particularly from the harder line skeptical view. If someone is more passively promoting an agenda does that make it any less real? I’m sure many AGW advocates are disgusted by the hard left imagery of Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt or Jim Hansen and their political and media counter parts Al Gore or the NYTimes. Dr. Curry serves a purpose for them as well. Dr. Curry is soft soap Green/Climate activism at another level. She certainly isn’t a sacred cow or a symbol of academic purity in an ugly time in history. Her middling position and posturing isn’t supported by reason at all. At the core AGW activism is by in large a totalitarian design dressed in many circles as supported by “science”. She’s helped that delusion far more than she has undermined it. So we are left with a false choice, radical leftist AGW and the whimpering Dr. Curry middling to water it down. I say neither because they are on the road to the same goal at different rates..

  204. Thanks. Paul.

    Stephen is making very good points with his following observation which I agree with 100%.

    STEPHEN SAYS

    However, as I pointed out over at Climate etc. there is still the issue of the MWP, LIA, Current Warm Period and that phase to phase temperature stepping that shows up in the observations.

    One can only achieve those characteristics if there is another, longer solar induced periodicity upon which the stadium wave is superimposed.

  205. @ Theo Goodwin (October 12, 2013 at 6:38 am)

    You reveal clearly that you’re not sufficiently well-informed by the following records:

    http://ftp.aer.com/pub/anon_collaborations/sba/aam.ncep.reanalysis.1948.2009

    ftp://ftp.iers.org/products/eop/long-term/c04_08/iau2000/eopc04_08_IAU2000.62-now

    Ask yourself why people appear determined to go to any length to protect the single word “internal” when these records clarify that it’s a misconception. If you want to try to argue that Judy’s up to naive ignorance rather than malicious deception, that’s fine, but bear in mind that like deception, ignorance is a form of darkness.

    Human nature is fascinating. The most fascinating thing I’ve seen during the years I’ve participated in the solar-climate discussion is the vehemence with which people defend this particular darkness, which is literally as wrong as 2+2=5 in a clear-cut black-&-white (not to be deliberately misrepresented as grey) sense.

    If Judy is someone you care about, a smarter battle for you to pick would be to help motivate her to complete by the end of October the exercise I outlined for A Lacis.

    I’m not here to play games Mr. Goodwin. I’m here to help. 3 years is too long. This exercise should take 20 minutes. If authorities continue to refuse to admit 1+1=2 to the record, we have a literally intolerable breakdown in justice.

    You would have to put a lot of money on the table to get me to even think about lying about this, as I would know with certainty that I’d eventually be found out. And even then, I don’t know if I could do it. The only thing I can think of that would make me pretend to go along with an “internal” narrative would be an offer of a guaranteed-secure lifelong position with guaranteed-secure pension at the local university. For that I could probably harmoniously cater to just about any political agenda for strictly practical reasons. Then I could focus on hiking & sea-kayaking and leave all of this noise behind for the rest of my assuredly comfortable days. You might find me projecting born-again-reformation within a few minutes in that case. There you go Mr. Goodwin. I’ve named my price for dark collusion.

  206. Paul Vaughan:

    re your post at October 12, 2013 at 10:08 am.

    We have been here before. Your campaign of unspecific, untrue and unsubstantiated smears against Judith Curry began on her web site then you transferred it to WUWT where you got the hiding you deserved from several people including me.

    The two data files you have again linked in your post I am addressing do NOT indicate anything nefarious about Dr Curry, and despite repeated requests on her web site and on WUWT you have not said how they do.

    You have an idea about climate and Dr Curry does not accept it. She also does not agree with me about climate. Her refusal to accept your ideas does not make her a bad person.

    Richard

  207. Salvatore Del Prete (October 12, 2013 at 9:54 am)

    Sequence matters. Solar-Terrestrial-Climate Weave 1st. MD (multidecadal) is a simple geometric consequence of that. If we try to leap them to centennial without prerequisites for more deeply lucid clarity, we’re attempting to put the cart before the horse. Patience — sometimes assisting education requires a lot of it. God Bless. Get your rest. And be healthy. Thanks for your strategic contributions.

  208. @ richardscourtney (October 12, 2013 at 10:41 am)

    All you’re doing is clarifying your functional innumeracy. Stop addressing me.

  209. richardscourtney says:
    October 11, 2013 at 2:52 pm

    So if others fall out the “acceptable” range of dissent they become “trolls”?

    In the warming community Dr. Curry is about as far as the consensus is going to go in acceptable dissent. Even then she will be mocked and ridiculed. It’s just as pathetic that skeptics are going to adhere to such boundaries or allow a concept like the “Pause” become part of the lexicon. That Dr. Curry upsets AGW fanaticism in itself isn’t a credential.

    Many skeptics want to sanitize the political discussion and pretend it’s about spaghetti charts and worse “science”. Dr. Curry facilitates that illusion and that is all that it is. Dr. Curry may be interpreted as the consensus crumbling as well but she is far from a reformer. Left to you we could spend another 20 years on the idiotic and the obviously political concept of the “pause”, “uncertainty” and “precautionary principles”.

    The whole AGW apparatus, Dr. Curry included has to go to the dustbin. While the radical core AGW advocates might view her as dissent I and many skeptics view her as rear guard walk-back operation. It’s good cop bad cop but she has the same agenda of climate authority on every policy position no matter how watered down it may appear. Thanks but no thanks.

  210. cwon14 and Paul Vaughan:

    cwon14,
    at October 12, 2013 at 11:04 am you refer to my post at October 11, 2013 at 2:52 pm. This link jumps to it.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/10/new-paper-from-dr-judith-curry-could-explain-the-pause/#comment-1444820

    That post defended Dr Curry against untrue attacks. It provided evidence, and it said nothing about anything else. Importantly, its only mention of a troll was about one who stalked me on her blog so persistently that I was driven off that blog.

    But having mentioned that post you then ask me
    So if others fall out the “acceptable” range of dissent they become “trolls”?
    No, “dissent” is desirable.

    However, since you ask about “trolls”, I think it proper to point out that you and Paul Vaughan are trolls. You smear the lady without reason and without evidence.

    Richard

  211. One more pretend to be “science” paper. Once again building castles out of thin air.
    No one knows. It is a too complex system.

  212. richardscourtney says:
    October 12, 2013 at 11:14 am

    I’m tough on Dr. Curry because of the long history of soft soap AGW advancement through seeming compromises.

    She still can’t identify AGW as a left-wing movement in fundamentals but endless laments “politics”. There is nothing honest about it.

    You’re the kind of skeptic that is going to get everyone else killed. She’s in the public arena and I stand on my statements. Spare me the phony outrage that it’s “personal” when it isn’t. She makes public policy statements that are inherently political every week. She blogs and renders positions. She can handle it but the cult following that includes many imagined skeptics can’t?

  213. cwon14:

    I see that you are trolling again with your post at October 12, 2013 at 11:55 am.

    You post more unsubstantiated smears of Dr Curry. If you can justify them do, otherwise keep quiet. Put up, or shut up.

    And I do not have “phony outrage”: I have disgust at your behaviour.

    Importantly, you can lecture me on being an opponent of AGW when you have opposed it as long as I have and at the cost I have. But you lack the spheroidal objects to really oppose it: you are merely another internet troll slinging mud from behind the cowardly shield of anonymity.

    Richard

  214. richardscourtney says:
    October 12, 2013 at 12:19 pm

    Dr. Curry’s positions and opinions are public records. Anyone can address them as they choose. Many people have similar nuances and views and judge her as a politically motivated opportunist in the debate. She has a world view and it still leads to a global regulatory scheme rationalized along the very same Greenshirt lines you might also oppose.

    How is it unsubstantiated? The “Pause” is a political concept, climate and weather fluctuate. The term is pregnant with presumptions that AGW is valid and need to be rationalized by the unaccounted for “Pause”. It’s beyond stupid that skeptics drag themselves into such contortions.

    All IPCC models failed.

    Higher CO2 no warming.

    Are we going spend the next 30 years going through every device that the same participants invented to avoid the reality that climate sensitivity can’t be measured or quantified? The Pause and the cousin “uncertainty” are exactly those types of fictions.

    It’s time to accept what is real, AGW is a political movement not a valid science claim. If you can’t address the reality then troll other posts. A week after she calls for the IPCC to be put down, with nebulous reasoning you can go read yourself, she releases a paper that validates many consensus IPCC views. It’s not like it’s a surprise, it’s what she does. Nothing unsubstantiated about it at all.

  215. Paul Vaughan says:
    October 11, 2013 at 11:48 pm

    @ phlogiston

    Like it or not your models aren’t free to violate the laws of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum. Your models NEED to be able to reproduced well-constrained statistical properties of earth rotation & global atmospheric angular momentum records. THIS IS NON-NEGOTIABLE.

    So I guess that makes it settled science.

    There is a substantial literature on nonlinear oscillation in oceanic circulation on decadal, century and millenial cycles, involving phenomena such as ENSO and bipolar seesawing, to which you yourself have referred in previous threads. You seem to think that the rotation of the earth and other astrophysical forces nullify such internal oscillation but the reality is the precise reverse, these forces energise such oscillation and emergent pattern. The coriolis force is a major driver of oceanic currents and modulation of obliquity probably switches bipolar seesawing on and off. Bipolar seesawing also offers the most elegant and parsimonious explanation of the Younger Dryas and the Antarctic reversal prior to the Holocene.

    In several previous threads I have offered a genuine middle way, that of the atmosphere-ocean in general as a weakly forced nonlinear oscillator (or set of such oscillators choreographed together as Wyatt and Curry are proposing). The forcing can and probably does include astrophysical forcing, to a greater or lesser extent but a finite extent. This seems the most compelling model and one which reconciles the undeniable reality of ocean driven internal oscillations with evidence for an astrophysical forcing role. However no-one has responded to this proposal. Its “my way or the highway” it seems for the star-gazers just as it is for the CAGW crowd, the science is settled and their narrow paradigm is the only game in town.

    If J Curry et al can bring some maturity to this by knocking some heads together then she will deserve her growing reputation and stature in the climate debate.

  216. cwon14:

    At October 12, 2013 at 12:48 pm I see you make the ‘not guilty by virtue of insanity’ plea.

    In response to my observing that you have made unsubstantiated assertions of Dr Curry being dishonest and politically motivated, you have replied

    How is it unsubstantiated? The “Pause” is a political concept, climate and weather fluctuate.

    NO!
    The “Pause” is a scientific concept which I think is mistaken.

    Yes, some people find it politically useful to them, but it is a purely scientific issue in the context of the paper which is the subject of this thread and which Dr Curry co-authored. Clearly, you can only see things through the distortions of your political views, but the reality of the matter is explained in my above post at October 11, 2013 at 5:58 am. This link jumps to it

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/10/new-paper-from-dr-judith-curry-could-explain-the-pause/#comment-1444312

    Richard

  217. phlogiston says:
    October 12, 2013 at 1:25 pm

    Paul Vaughan says:
    October 11, 2013 at 11:48 pm

    @ phlogiston
    Like it or not your models aren’t free to violate the laws of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum. Your models NEED to be able to reproduced well-constrained statistical properties of earth rotation & global atmospheric angular momentum records. THIS IS NON-NEGOTIABLE.

    So I guess that makes it settled science.

    There is a substantial literature on nonlinear oscillation in oceanic circulation on decadal, century and millenial cycles, involving phenomena such as ENSO and bipolar seesawing, to which you yourself have referred in previous threads. You seem to think that the rotation of the earth and other astrophysical forces nullify such internal oscillation but the reality is the precise reverse, these forces energise such oscillation and emergent pattern. The coriolis force is a major driver of oceanic currents and modulation of obliquity probably switches bipolar seesawing on and off. Bipolar seesawing also offers the most elegant and parsimonious explanation of the Younger Dryas and the Antarctic reversal prior to the Holocene.

    In several previous threads I have offered a genuine middle way, that of the atmosphere-ocean in general as a weakly forced nonlinear oscillator (or set of such oscillators choreographed together as Wyatt and Curry are proposing). The forcing can and probably does include astrophysical forcing, to a greater or lesser extent but a finite extent. This seems the most compelling model and one which reconciles the undeniable reality of ocean driven internal oscillations with evidence for an astrophysical forcing role. However no-one has responded to this proposal. Its “my way or the highway” it seems for the star-gazers just as it is for the CAGW crowd, the science is settled and their narrow paradigm is the only game in town.

    If J Curry et al can bring some maturity to this by knocking some heads together then she will deserve her growing reputation and stature in the climate debate.

  218. @See – owe to Rich:

    The Wave originated in the USA or Canada by most accounts, but only became known globally after a Mexican event, so “Mexican Wave” is a bit of a misnomer… It pains me to use Wiki as a source, but… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_%28audience%29

    1970s–1980s

    While there is general disagreement about the precise origin of the wave, most stories of the phenomenon’s origin suggest that the wave first started appearing at North American sporting events during the late 1970s and early 1980s. Canadian sports fans make claims of having created waves during the late 1970s at the 1976 Montreal Olympics, National Hockey League games in Canada, and at Vancouver Whitecaps games, where crowds were alleged to have performed the wave for a commercial in which the slogan was “Catch the Wave.”

    Krazy George Henderson led a wave in October 15, 1981 at a Major League Baseball game in Oakland, California.[2] This wave was broadcast on TV, and George owns a videotape of the event, which he uses to bolster his claim as the inventor of the wave. On October 31, 1981, a wave was created at a UW football game in Seattle, and the cheer continued to appear during the rest of that year’s football season.[2] Although the people who created the first wave in Seattle acknowledge Krazy George’s wave at a baseball stadium, they claim to have popularized the phenomenon, since Krazy George’s wave was a one-time event.

    There is also an unconfirmed claim that on June 24, 1981, while waiting for President Ronald Reagan to take the podium at the U.S.A. Jaycees National Convention at the Henry B. Gonzalez Convention Center in San Antonio, Texas, the Jaycee members and their guests – about 10,000 people – began doing the wave. It lasted for about three or four minutes before the Secret Service requested that they stop, presumably because it made it difficult to monitor the crowd.

    I would think there would be photo evidence for the Canadian claim as that was a well covered event… The article goes on to list other slightly later claims to invention at US sports events, then gives the Mexican connection:

    1986 FIFA World Cup

    In June 1986, the wave was first brought to world-wide attention when it was displayed at the 1986 FIFA World Cup in Mexico. For many people living outside of North America, this was the first time they ever saw the phenomenon. As a result, English speakers outside of North America refer to the phenomenon as the “Mexican wave”

    So Judith Curry is clearly avoiding that misnomer with “Stadium Wave” while avoiding being embroiled in a primacy spat…

    Now that we’ve dealt with the “Wave Controversy”, we can get back to the mud slinging and name calling over AGW Sects… (Really guys, can’t we be a bit more civil and discuss her paper and not her person? As someone who is often “arguing for the rational middle” and taking rocks from both sides, I have some sympathy for her position… if not her beliefs.)

  219. @ Salvatore Del Prete
    October 10, 2013 at 1:00 pm

    NICOLA’S EXPLANATIONS- are a 1000x times better[...] but still I don’t see any explanations in his work that explain why the climate can go along in one climate regime [...]then out of the blue shift to another climate regime, which has happened as evidence by past abrupt climatic changes. Such as The Younger Dryas, or the 8200 year ago cold period both which began and ended in decades.

    The Younger Dryas was almost certainly a large rock fall from space onto the reducing ice sheet.
    http://cosmictusk.com/ has it generally right on that, IMHO.

    The 8200 BP event was a Bond Event. Those look to be driven by a periodic event external. Best candidate is the lunar tidal processes detailed in the above paper:

    http://m.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814.fullh3814.full

    They find periods that match and also some longer ones closer to 5000 years. What seems to happen is that the lunar tidal effect shifts over 1200 – 1800 year scales and at times causes a disruption of the ocean circulation that causes a cold excursion. Then it all picks up again. (Best place to be then, BTW, is Florida. As the cold wallops the UK and EU from the Gulf Stream slowing down, the warmth backs up in Florida and it stays nice…. There’s a reason I’m in Florida now ;-) http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/d-o-ride-my-see-saw-mr-bond/

    Basically a bunch of proxies show Florida is anti-phase with Greenland on those major events. IF we have a slow down of the Gulf Stream and resultant misery in Europe (as it tends to do in grand minima reading tea leaves in some of the proxies) it will stay nice here. It gets a bit more “summery” like with more rain, but that’s a good thing, IMHO.

    So those very abrupt longer term excursions are more driven by major “switch” events and not by the faster cycle “wobble” cycles. The “Mr Bond” posting goes into how that works and has links to papers in it. In the end, it looks to me like a large wave that most of the time is in ranges where the little wave doesn’t do much, but at some points the little wave can kick off a circulation and things get changed fast.

    This paper in that link is pertinent to what Judith Curry found, for example:

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL042793.shtml

    GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 37, L08703, 4 PP., 2010
    doi:10.1029/2010GL042793

    Twentieth century bipolar seesaw of the Arctic and Antarctic surface air temperatures

    Understanding the phase relationship between climate changes in the Arctic and Antarctic regions is essential for our understanding of the dynamics of the Earth’s climate system. In this paper we show that the 20th century de-trended Arctic and Antarctic temperatures vary in anti-phase seesaw pattern – when the Arctic warms the Antarctica cools and visa versa. This is the first time that a bi-polar seesaw pattern has been identified in the 20th century Arctic and Antarctic temperature records. The Arctic (Antarctic) de-trended temperatures are highly correlated (anti-correlated) with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) index suggesting the Atlantic Ocean as a possible link between the climate variability of the Arctic and Antarctic regions. Recent accelerated warming of the Arctic results from a positive reinforcement of the linear warming trend (due to an increasing concentration of greenhouse gases and other possible forcings) by the warming phase of the multidecadal climate variability (due to fluctuations of the Atlantic Ocean circulation).

    So one must pay attention to the Antarctic when looking at Arctic Ice loss…

    Elsewhere in that article I quote another paper:

    Key takeaway for Heinrich events is that they show a wobble in temperature. A rise and a fall.

    This paper says it is due to the ocean circulation having a swap of ‘mode’:

    http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Nature/rapid.pdf

    Abrupt changes in climate, termed Dansgaard-Oeschger and Heinrich events, have punctuated the last glacial period (~100 – 10 kyr ago) but not the Holocene (the past 10 kyr). Here we use an intermediate-complexity climate model to investigate the stability of glacial climate, and we find that only one mode of Atlantic Ocean circulation is stable: a cold mode with deep water formation in the Atlantic Ocean south of Iceland. However, a `warm’ circulation mode similar to the present-day Atlantic Ocean is only marginally unstable, and temporary transitions to this warm mode can easily be triggered. This leads to abrupt warm events in the model which share many characteristics of the observed Dansgaard-Oeschger events. For a large freshwater input (such as a large release of icebergs), the model’s deep water formation is temporarily switched off, causing no strong cooling in Greenland but warming in Antarctica, as is observed for Heinrich events. Our stability analysis provides an explanation why glacial climate is much more variable than Holocene climate.

    Now notice that in this case there is an instability mode that only shows up during Glacial events. So some extreme changes can’t happen as long as we are warm enough. That is, stability is to the warm side, catastrophic instability to the colder side…

    That same oscillation still exists now (and lead to the 8200 BP event) but does not trigger a collapse of the regime, only a temporary slowdown of circulation and a cold run in Europe (and nice times in Florida…) then things pick up again back to normal (in a Holocene warm regime).

    That Nicola’s work does not address those is no slam on him. He is just looking at a different time scale. He is looking at things on a human scale, not so much on a multiple thousands of years scale. Though, were he to take that look, I’d wager he would find the same ‘astronomical’ drivers, as they are what drive the lunar tidal metronome on a very long time scale of Bond Event and 5000 year “ticks”. So, in short, looking at the decade to century scale oscillations says nothing about thousand year events, nor should it. And thousand year events say nothing about the 60 year cycles.

  220. @ phlogiston (October 12, 2013 at 1:27 pm)

    I like you and your contributions but we are having a difficult misunderstanding. I suggest you complete by the end of October the exercise I outlined for A Lacis at CE. If you are unable &/or unwilling to do so and you continue attempting challenge, you are being socially unjust via harassment. I mean this in all sincerity. I assure you I want to have a civil discussion, but that doesn’t mean I have to tolerate 2+2=5 bullying from quantitatively innumerate morons. The way to restore civility to the discussion is to roll up your sleeves and do the calculations. If people can’t do them on their own, that’s informative. Frankly, I suspect Judy Curry has no clue where to begin. That’s why I’m calling her out on this. I actually quite like her, but I’m making it clear that I don’t accept her quantitative judgement. She’s overplaying her hand. I’m willing to help her correct this (by working with Marcia). There’s more going on here than you seem to realize. Apologies for not being able to say more. Let’s take a breather and come back to this near the end of October. Regards.

  221. @ E.M.Smith

    Lunisolar at most scrambles interannually & inter-regionally. MD NH attractor is solar.

    – –

    @ dalyplanet (October 12, 2013 at 2:02 pm)

    Some of that content needs aggressive condensing, reframing, &/or revision and some core content would not change at all. At the time I quickly put it out raw for whatever few might find inspiration and then weathered the backlash from others to save a shortage of free time for hiking & sea-kayaking.

    Refinement comes naturally over time. Here are some more recent updates:

    Somewhat recent: http://www.billhowell.ca/Paul%20L%20Vaughan/Vaughan%20130804%20Solar%20Terrestrial%20Climate%20101.PDF (4 pages, 8 illustrations – 4 pages is the ideal article length IMHO)

    Less recent: http://www.billhowell.ca/Paul%20L%20Vaughan/Vaughan%20130224%20-%20Solar%20Terrestrial%20Volatility%20Waves.pdf

    Some of the STC101 content is currently undergoing refinement — e.g. new results on ozone gradient coherence with solar (rock solid – the kind of thing only deception artists & quantitative morons try to challenge) and new animations. The article will need to somehow be condensed as it’s going to exceed 4 pages (the optimum).

    I also used to play around with some more eccentric stuff, but for the first time ever I’m going to clearly announce here that I’ve lost interest in that stuff since it doesn’t afford the kind of rock solid results I’m finding in the attractors at the Earth-end of solar-terrestrial-climate relations. (Please take note phlogiston.)

    – –

    @ Salvatore Del Prete (October 12, 2013 at 10:59 am)

    The centennial partitioning is becoming a stronger concern. I don’t mean to suggest we should let them use controversy about semi-annual, QBO, ENSO, Schwabe, & MD (multidecadal) atmospheric shape & circulation changes and resultant cumulative ocean temperature changes to build in social/political/administrative delays. One of the many roles I used to play for a number of years involved university admin. I’ve seen all the tricks. They’re masters at it. The best you can usually aim for is a stalemate, but I found they’re usually willing to do fair trades too, so I suggest keeping in mind the classic “orange” example from Negotiation 101. It’s not a matter of sticking to stubborn “positions”, but rather taking the time discover initially-hidden opportunity by exploring interests. Keep up the good work SDP. Cheers.

  222. richardscourtney says:
    October 12, 2013 at 1:25 pm

    So if the conversation doesn’t stay on the wonk “science” claims it’s out of bounds? The politically correct standard of most AGW smoke and mirrors. So is ranting about trolls instead of addressing the points made expose the preposterous “science” pulled from a hat. The Pause is garbage time framing of a meme on its last legs.

  223. cwon14:

    I read your surreal post at October 12, 2013 at 3:53 pm and I had the appropriate laugh.

    If you want to discuss politics then do it on one the two active political threads on WUWT and not here on this science thread. However, I suspect you lack the political knowledge to cope there as you clearly lack any ability to understand the science on this thread.

    Preferably, do your trolling on another blog.

    Richard

  224. @Marcia Wyatt:

    Thanks for that. Not bothered at all by the length (completeness is good!) but a few lines of white space would have helped ;-)

    Interesting story of a journey of discovery… And congratulations on running the gauntlet!

    I suggest looking at the lunar tidal cycle as a metronome on your Stadium Wave. It drives water all over the planet with cycles longer than most folks expect. (It isn’t just a 28 day cycle… there are other cycles up to 1800 years and beyond as various orbital parameters sync and drift).

    @Steve Garcia:

    Per that pnas paper linked above, this graph:

    We have done most of the warming. The “dip” (indicating warming) of about 2000 is about as deep as the “dip” of 2250 (which will be a bit warmer than now, but not much). In between is a peak of cold at 2133 (about 1/2 the Little Ice Age cold excursion) so it’s going to get cold for a while before we get the last hurrah of warmth. 3107-3452 is a “new little ice age” IMHO and likely will be the descent into the next Glacial. (That graph is just the cooling from tides, not the Milankovich ‘kicker’, which is pushing us toward the magic W/m^2 where the glacial begins…)

    The precision is too low to read easily on that time scale for “soon” events, but looking at figure one: http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814/F1.expansion.html

    We had a cold peak in 1974 (when it snowed in the valley floor of California – very unusual) and are now in a hot peak circa 2010. It now cools to about 2040 (point ‘c’ on the graph) and then warms some to 2100, when we hit a larger harder cold excursion (point ‘D’) about 2150.

    All that is the tidal cycle. Laying under it is the long slow descent into the next Glacial of our ongoing Ice Age. (We are in an interglacial period in an ongoing Ice Age right now… it WILL return.) So those predictions really need a long slow drop bias applied. Especially when you get a few hundred year run in them.

    So now you know too ;-)

    @DBStealey:

    I like “inflection” ;-)

  225. @ Paul Vaughan:
    October 12, 2013 at 3:26 pm (Edit)

    @ E.M.Smith

    Lunisolar at most scrambles interannually & inter-regionally. MD NH attractor is solar.

    Look at the linked paper and graphs. Lunar tidal cycles range out to 1800 years clearly. It’s not just an “interannual” thing. Also solar changes are time synchronous with lunar tidal (both driven by the same planetary orbital resonance) so it is not possible to say one “is” and the other “isn’t”. Just not possible to disambiguate that in the data. All that can really be said is “they all come together when they come”. (Until more mechanism specific data are derived / found).

    That was a major “Ah Dang it” moment for me. Realizing the answer was unavailable and it would take new data collection to sort out actual mechanism. (or finding novel ways to use old data sets) So there are 60 year, 178 year, and 1200 year and 1800 year patterns to where the moon moves the oceans. It moves above and below the ecliptic and gets closer / further from the earth and aligns, or doesn’t with the sun. That MOVES the oceans more north / south and more to one ocean than the other. This happens over many long time scales. That is hardly just “scrambles interannually”.

    It’s easy to get a pet theory or hobby horse and put on blinders, so I understand your fixation against the lunar contribution. It’s especially hard when I’m saying “It matters, but you can’t know how much” since “they all come together when they come”. (having realized that the blinders cause folks to miss that this is a self synchronized collective behaviour of lunar, solar, GCR, clouds, etc. etc. with an orbital resonance metronome…. so any “it isn’t that” statement between items in that set is broken…) But please do take a moment to consider that there is an additive collective at work here. Not one “magic thing”, be it gas or sun. Or moon.

    I also note you said:

    I assure you I want to have a civil discussion, but that doesn’t mean I have to tolerate 2+2=5 bullying from quantitatively innumerate morons. The way to restore civility to the discussion is to roll up your sleeves and do the calculations.

    I’d suggest that calling someone “innumerate morons” is not the way to “civil discussion”. Think about it…

  226. Paul Vaughan,

    Thank you for the additional links, they are clarifying. I remember the first time I saw fig. 4 in MKT 2011 I began to understand the information you were conveying in your 2011 PDF posted here. It is an interesting concept.

  227. richardscourtney said, (Oct 11, 5:58 am):
    Secondly, the “stadium wave” removes the suggestion of dangerous AGW. Assuming the modified radiative forcing paradigm is correct, it follows that the present “pause” was preceded by a period of warming which was enhanced by the “stadium wave”. Hence, the warming effect of GHGs over that warming period must be at most only half of the warming which occurred.
    = = = = = = = =

    Non seqitur. It does not follow.
    If it did follow, at most, only half the tempests over that period could be attributed to witches.
    (my parody of Mosher’s comment on the thread – note the subject)

  228. @ dalyplanet (October 12, 2013 at 5:24 pm)

    Indeed WKT2011 Figure 4 is a very powerful image. None of the text in either that paper or the new paper is needed. The figure tells the whole story to someone with the right combination of background knowledge to interpret sensibly. WKT2011 Figure 4 went under the radar of most until now (celebrity-profile co-author jumping on the 2013 bandwagon, bringing more attention).

    WKT2011 Figure 4 is such a powerful image that now that it has made it onto the radar screens I suspect it might draw some viciously hostile and downright maliciously unethical attacks from some of the creepiest dark agents who use administrative-style endlessly-harassing-strings-of-uninsightfully-distracting-irrelevant-minutia tie-you-up-at-committee-forever-discussing-nothing-worthwhile tactics to attempt a long, drawn-out predators-teeth-in-your-face type militantly-sour twisted-obfuscation of a very threatening crystal clear big Figure 4 picture. It will be informative to see who leads such a charge if it happens.

    – –

    @ E.M.Smith

    You don’t remember me citing that article and emphasizing the confounding countless times years ago?

    There’s something in the material to which I’ve just linked (see above) that you’ve not been able &/or willing to appreciate and understand. If you decide to go through the material again, see if you can tell which results are black-&-white conclusions and which are grey areas of adventurous exploration. I respect that your interests may lie elsewhere. That’s no problem. I wish you the best.

  229. Khwarizmi:

    At October 12, 2013 at 8:28 pm you quote my having said at October 11, 2013 at 5:58 am

    Secondly, the “stadium wave” removes the suggestion of dangerous AGW. Assuming the modified radiative forcing paradigm is correct, it follows that the present “pause” was preceded by a period of warming which was enhanced by the “stadium wave”. Hence, the warming effect of GHGs over that warming period must be at most only half of the warming which occurred.

    Then you reply

    Non seqitur. It does not follow.
    If it did follow, at most, only half the tempests over that period could be attributed to witches.
    (my parody of Mosher’s comment on the thread – note the subject)

    No, the non sequitur is yours. The paper is about temperature change and is not about “tempests” and “witches”.

    My point is simple arithmetic; i.e.
    if the cooling phase of the “stadium wave” negates AGW then
    AGW – wave = no warming

    so AGW = wave

    And the warming phase of the “stadium wave” adds to AGW to provide X warming, so
    AGW + wave = X warming

    i.e. 2*AGW = X warming

    Richard

  230. richardscourtney says:
    October 12, 2013 at 11:14 am

    But having mentioned that post you then ask me
    So if others fall out the “acceptable” range of dissent they become “trolls”?
    No, “dissent” is desirable.
    ———–

    HA, I must be special case because it was your desire to call me a “ranting and delusional denialist”. I must have severely jerked your chain the wrong way.

    You really get your dander up when proven wrong and/or your claim(s) contradicted, ….. don’ja?

    And “YES”. the “Pause” is a political concept that was just recently coined because the CAGW proponents needed a CYA to overshadow their intentional ignoring and/or discrediting of learned individuals such as William Happer who told everyone about the “Pause”, ….. like five (5) years ago (2009), to wit:
    ————–

    Statement to the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee by William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University, made on February 25, 2009.

    “Let me state clearly where I probably agree with the other witnesses. We have been in a period of global warming over the past 200 years, but there have been several periods, like the last ten years, when the warming has ceased, and there have even been periods of substantial cooling, as from 1940 to 1970.”

    Read statement @ http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2906
    —————

    PS: chasing “stadium waves” around the globe = circular reasoning.

    Cheers, SamC, ….. the “ranting and delusional denialist”

  231. Samuel C Cogar:

    At October 13, 2013 at 6:08 am you say to me

    I must be special case because it was your desire to call me a “ranting and delusional denialist”

    Say what!?
    When and where do you claim I called you that and in what context?

    I do not recall ever having called anyone a “denialist” of anything.

    It seems to me that your accusation defines you as a “special case”.

    Richard

  232. I could be one of Dr Curry’s biggest fans. But how is it no one seems to remember or know about Bill Grays ideas on this matter, which predate all of this. Bill was talking about this as early as the 1970s!. That is not to take anything away from Dr Curry, but as someone who has read everything Bill Gray has written I am seeing his ideas being amplified in many of the theories we see today.

    If we see farther than others its because we stand on the shoulders of giants. I would suggest that readers here get their hands on anything Bill Gray has written.

    That being said, Dr Curry’s ideas here are certainly helping to reveal the nature of these events is natural for the most part. That as the head of the major universitys dept,, she has the guts to speak her mind is even more admirable.

  233. Richard Courtney,
    The paper is about a pesky “stadium wave” coming along and putting the otherwise accurate predictions of the climate alarm industry on pause.

    It’s garbage wrapped in thick layers of post-normal bafflegab.
    cwon14 was correct.

  234. Khwarizmi:

    I note your misguided opinion at October 13, 2013 at 1:39 pm.

    The reality of the paper is as I stated in my post at October 11, 2013 at 5:58 am. This link jumps to it

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/10/new-paper-from-dr-judith-curry-could-explain-the-pause/#comment-1444312

    It is a major climb down by ‘climate science’ supporting the AGW paradigm.

    Attacks on Dr Curry and later of me by the offensive and obnoxious troll posting as cwon14 are not “correct” according to any meaning of that word.

    Richard

  235. From above:

    “The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s,” said Wyatt, an independent scientist after having earned her Ph.D. from the University of Colorado in 2012.

    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.”

    ************

    I will stay far away from the politics and just comment on the prediction that “the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s,”

    I assume Wyatt and Curry are predicting that global average temperatures will stay approximately constant (flat, with normal variability) into the 2030’s after which CO2-driven warming will resume.

    I hope they are correct, but I must disagree.

    I suggest that global cooling will soon become apparent (statistically significant) and will last at least into the 2030’s or 2040’s.

    Our difference of opinion probably results from Wyatt and Curry assuming that climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 (ECS) significantly exceeds 1, versus my assessment that ECS is insignificant (near zero), if it exists at all. I refer here to “macro ECS” which includes not only any actual “micro ECS” greenhouse effect of increased atmospheric CO2, but also includes the impacts of natural seasonal drivers that clearly show that CO2 LAGS temperature at all measured time scales ( so it is illogical to suggest that “macro ECS” exists).

    I will use satellite-derived temperatures in the Lower Troposphere as my indicator, since I think there is a significant warming bias in surface temperatures.

    I do not know if global cooling will be mild or severe. I would strongly prefer mild versus severe global cooling, but regretfully suggest that my personal preferences will have little or no impact on actual global temperatures. :-}
    ________________

    My earlier prediction is at

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/20/premonitions-of-the-fall-in-temperature/#comment-990638

    In summary it concluded that in the next decade there is an ~~80% probability of global cooling, a ~~60% probability of no-worse-than-moderate cooling, and a ~~40% probability of more severe global cooling. Today I think this estimate might be a bit too pessimistic, but tomorrow it may be OK again. My “climate model” is informal, only a bit better than a Ouija Board, but infinitely better than the computer climate models cited by the IPCC.

    I say there is zero probability of major global warming in the next few decades, since Earth is at the plateau of a natural warming cycle, and global cooling, moderate or severe, is the next probable step.

    In the decade from 2021 to 2030, I say average global temperatures will be:
    1. Much warmer than the past decade (similar to IPCC projections)? 0% probability of occurrence
    2. About the same as the past decade? 20%
    3. Moderately cooler than the past decade? 40%
    4. Much cooler than the past decade (similar to ~~1800 temperatures, during the Dalton Minimum) ? 25%
    5. Much much cooler than the past decade (similar ~~1700 temperatures, during to the Maunder Minimum) ? 15%
    In summary, I say it is going to get cooler, with a significant probability that it will be cold enough to negatively affect the grain harvest.

  236. richardscourtney says:
    October 13, 2013 at 7:34 am
    Say what!?
    When and where do you claim I called you that and in what context?

    I do not recall ever having called anyone a “denialist” of anything.
    ————

    A “lapse of memory recall”, huh?

    You sure did , Richard, you specifically inferred that I was a “denialist” of your tripe n’ piffle commentary and you did so in two (2) successive posts, to wit:

    ——————————-
    richardscourtney says:
    September 4, 2013 at 4:18 am

    As I said, the important question is why that ~2% of all emissions accumulates in the air when THE DYNAMICS OF THE CARBON INDICATE THE PROCESSES CAN SEQUESTER ALL THE EMISSIONS.

    I refuse to engage with you any more because – as is often said –
    “Don’t wrestle with a pig: you get dirty and the pig likes it.”

    Richard

    —————————————-
    richardscourtney says:
    September 4, 2013 at 10:02 am

    Samuel C Cogar:

    Bother somebody else with your rants and delusions.

    Richard

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/31/co2-calculation-in-the-glovbal-carbon-cycle-may-be-off-due-to-a-depth-error/

    ————————————-

    And Richard, there is no “important question” to be asked as to “why that ~2% of all emissions accumulates in the air” simply because that 2% figure was derived via use of bass ackward “fuzzy math” calculations of highly inaccurate estimations of anthropogenic CO2 emissions ….. and the illogical assumption that given the fact that every 1 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 is equal to five (5) gigatons of CO2, …… therefore the 2 ppm yearly increase in atmospheric CO2 is equal to ten (10) gigatons of CO2, …… and “whooopy do”, ….. ten (10) gigatons is 2% of the aforesaid highly inaccurate estimations of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

    Richard, the ocean waters are the primary “controller” of atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities and it couldn’t care less about your estimated anthropogenic CO2 emissions anymore than a sponge cares about the source of the water it absorbs.

    The ocean waters are still “warming up” post Little Ice Age.

    Cheers, Sam C

  237. Samuel C Cogar:

    So your post at October 14, 2013 at 2:50 am admits that YOU LIED when you claimed I had called you a “denialist”. I DID NOT.

    Indeed, it was a complete lie when you asserted (twice) that I had said you are a “ranting and delusional denialist”.

    I note that having attempted to deflect this thread with that lie, your name links to a web site that does not exist, and your post I am answering raises the ‘red herring’ of carbon cycle discussion.

    Take your trolling elsewhere.

    Richard

  238. “Her written presentation to that Hearing contained a section which was almost verbatim the same as my post.”

    Did she give you credit for your post? Otherwise, it is plagiarism. That’s a serious academic no-no. I hope she gave you credit if was “almost verbatim” as you assert. This is a real nuts and bolts issue that can make or break an academic’s career, and such an assertion should not be made off-handedly. If she did not give you a citation, that’s troubling.

  239. richardscourtney says:
    October 14, 2013 at 3:25 am
    So your post at October 14, 2013 at 2:50 am admits that YOU LIED when you claimed I had called you a “denialist”. I DID NOT.

    Yada, yada, Richard, and I suppose that you will also claim that you DID NOT call me a dirty pig that you didn’t want to wrestle with.

    Richard, getta clue, that stated ~2% accumulation of all CO2 emissions is but one (1) of the many CAGW “junk science” claims and it is foolish for anyone to be citing it as being factual science in their commentary regardless of of their reason for doing so.

    your name links to a web site that does not exist

    Richard, you will have to discuss that with the WUWT server because I DID NOT include a “link” to a web site when I entered my 1st post. It appears to be part of a comment that I posted on another Forum wherein I stated “I’m just a retired citizen with a passion for actual, factual science knowledge”. “DUH”, iffen I had cited a link to a web site it would have been this one: http://snvcogar.newsvine.com/_tps/_author/profile

    Take your trolling elsewhere.

    Clean up you act, Richard, by only talking actual, factual science …. then I won’t be “trolling” for the miseducated miisinformation when it is included in your commentary.

    Best you keep in mind that …….. associations, consensusations, correlations, estimations, guesstimations, insinuations, modelations, obfuscations, opinionations, percentageations, projectionations and/or tripe n’ piffle …… are not scientifically factual entities …………… no matter how much any one wants to believe that they are.

  240. Samuel C Cogar:

    re your post at October 15, 2013 at 1:23 am.

    You lied about what I said.
    I called you on it.
    You admitted it was your “interpretation” of what I had said and NOT what I said.
    I pointed out that you had admitted you lied.
    Your post I am answering tells me to “clean up {my} act”.

    pfft!

    Richard

  241. Marcia Wyatt says:
    October 10, 2013 at 10:49 pm

    You kind of miss the point of my comment. It was my prediction that there never would be any indication of the influence of CO2, because I subscribe to the G&T POV that it’s radiative influence at atmospheric temps (as opposed to combustion chamber ones) is “negligible”. So there is nothing to find, whether you focus on it, or not!

    As for your discussion of “character assassination” I can only presume you are responding to someone else’s comment(s). I have had nothing but praise for your work.

  242. (October 16, 2013 at 6:00 am ) “You lied about what I said.”

    Richard, that was another un-truth because I made no mention of you “saying” anything.

    I simply stated …. “it was your desire to call me a “ranting and delusional denialist”. And that is exactly what you did via this statement, to wit:

    September 4, 2013 at 10:02 am
    “Samuel C Cogar: Bother somebody else with your rants and delusions.”

    Richard, were you not accusing me of being a denier of your commentary?

    If not, then your statement was a dastardly lie about my person because you know very well that my commentary has never been one that contained “rants and delusions” pertaining to anything of a scientific nature.

    Richard, I’ll assume that you are still young enough to learn more about what is actual, factual science and what is not, ….. but you will first have to nurture yourself to control your emotionally driven responses before very much of any said learning will occur.

    Never believe or discredit another person’s comment without first asking yourself …. “Now just why did he/she say that?” After you make a determination of “why” then you can respond accordingly ….. and be prepared to defend your response. And merely claiming “someone said so” is a dog that won’t hunt.

    If you want to learn more about “Why you are what you are” I will post you a couple “links” that will explain some of your “questions”. Even for “questions” that you would never think to ask yourself.

Comments are closed.