Guest post by James Padgett
Many of you are aware that the concept of continental drift, proposed by Alfred Wegener, was widely ridiculed by his contemporaries. This reaction was in spite of the very clear visual evidence that the continents could be fit together like a giant puzzle.
I think this is where we are in climate science today. There is an obvious answer that many experts cannot see even though a young child would understand when presented with the evidence.
Our current crop of experts cannot see simple solutions. Their science is esoteric and alchemical. It is so complex, so easy to misunderstand, that, like the ancient Greek mystery religions, there is a public dogma and then there are the internal mysteries only the initiated are given access to.
And then there are the heretics who challenge their declared truths.
That isn’t to say that many climatologists aren’t smart. On the contrary, they can be very smart, but that doesn’t preclude them from being very wrong on both collective and individual levels.
One of the most brilliant men alive in the last century, John von Neumann, believed that by the 1960’s our knowledge of atmospheric fluid dynamics would be so great, and our computer simulations so precise, that we’d be able to control the weather by making small changes to the system.
It is true that the climate models used today do a very good job with fluid dynamics, but despite that understanding we can neither predict nor control the weather (and the climate) to the degree he imagined.
An incredible genius, he made a mistake. He didn’t understand the fundamental chaos that made his vision impossible.
In regard to the climate, I hope my simple vision is closer to reality than the excuse-filled spaghetti hypothesis that currently brandishes the self-given title of “settled science.”
My proposal, that climate is primarily driven by solar and oceanic influences, is probably believed by more than a few skeptics, but hopefully I can make a compelling case for it that both small children and climate scientists can understand. To that end I’ll take a quick look at the temperature record from 1900 until the present. I will explain the case for the oceanic/solar model and articulate the excuses given by the anthropogenic camp for the decades that inconveniently do not line up with the hypothesis of carbon dioxide being the primary driver of climate change.
1900-1944:
This period is largely warming. What could possibly be the cause of that?
The sun seems to be the obvious answer. It is so obvious in fact that even most mainstream climatologists admit its influence in these years. Some also say there is an anthropogenic effect in there, somewhere, and they could be right, but it certainly isn’t obvious.
And while the Atlantic is in its cool phase over the earlier part of this period, the largest ocean, the Pacific, is warm,especially in the last couple decades, but when it turns into its cool phase….
1945-1976:
We get 30 years of cooling in the surface station record.
According to proponents of the anthropogenic model, the unprecedented increase in carbon dioxide following World War II was not only masked, but overpowered by sulfate emissions. That is an interesting excuse, but this cooling period exactly matches the cool phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).
So much so that when it goes into its warm phase in…
1977-1998:
We get 20 more years of warming:
which is kicked up a notch towards the end as the Atlantic goes into its warm phase:
That leaves us with the final period from…
1999-Present:
After the super El Nino of 1998 temperatures have largely flat-lined and perhaps even dropped slightly. Both the Atlantic and Pacific are in their warm phases and the sun remains at the “high” levels following the recovery from the Little Ice Age, but the Pacific seems to be wobbling cooler and cooler as it shifts back into its cool phase.
True we are the “warmest decade on record,” but we are also the only decade on record with both oceans in their warm phases in a time of relatively high solar activity. The only comparable time would be during and around the 1930’s and early 1940’s, around the time of the Dust Bowl, and the sun wasn’t as active back then – and that’s assuming the records are an accurate reflection of global temperatures back then.
So how do climate scientists explain this lack of warming for over a decade? Ah, well they blame the sulfates again – a classic excuse, while others say that the heat has teleported deep into the oceans. I say teleported because there is no record of the journey of that missing heat into those unmeasured depths from the well-measured depths it would normally have had to travel through in order to get to that abyss.
Of course, others say this time period is simply not statistically significant, but the only period of heating we can’t directly trace to the sun, the time from 1977-1998, a mere twenty year period, is certainly statistically significant in some minds.
To that I only have one question for them:
Are you smarter than a 5th grader?
Cheers,
James Padgett
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
LazyTeenager says:
November 5, 2011 at 12:55 am
“So why dont we see a little ice age every 11 years? And the answer has to be backed by evidence, not hand waving or speculation.”
Probably for the same reason you can’t boil a pot of water in 11 seconds but with the same flame you can boil it in 11 minutes.
You evidently don’t have enough experience in everyday life to give you any common sense guidance. Either that or you’re intentionally obtuse.
R. Gates says:
November 6, 2011 at 6:53 am
“You have no idea that solar and oceanic dynamics have been part of global climate system models for decades?”
eally? They factored in the effect of solar magnetic field strength? Got a link to that, ya putz?
Volker Doormann says:
November 6, 2011 at 12:41 am
“It is senseless to give knowledge to a black hole.”
Actually that’s the meat of a famous (if you’re a theoretical physics afficionado, that is) between wager between perhaps the two most recognized living theoretical physicists in the world today, Leonard Susskind and Stephen Hawking. Hawking said information is lost forever to the universe when it enters a black hole. Susskind says information can’t be destroyed and you can’t even cheat by hiding it forever in a black hole. After ten years of theoretical bickering and input from every two bit theoretical physicist on the planet Hawking conceded.
So, you see, it isn’t senseless to throw information into a black hole! Write the down! 🙂
Electric Blanket says:
November 6, 2011 at 3:14 am
James Padgett:
John von Neumann, believed that by the 1960’s our knowledge of atmospheric fluid dynamics would be so great, and our computer simulations so precise, that we’d be able to control the weather by making small changes to the system.
——————-
Could you provide a citation for this? The only things I can find are to do with his development of numerical weather forecasting and his proposal for reducing the albedo of snow areas in the event of an ice-age.
———————–
It’s probably true. I didn’t find an matching quote but the following is conceptually close:
http://www.colby.edu/sts/climateengineers.pdf
Dave Springer says
Probably for the same reason you can’t boil a pot of water in 11 seconds but with the same flame you can boil it in 11 minutes.
You evidently don’t have enough experience in everyday life to give you any common sense guidance. Either that or you’re intentionally obtuse.
——–
The ocean thermal inertia explanation did occur to me. However I don’t believe in common sense, especially when no one has any direct experience of the such things as ocean thermal inertia.
I did add the -produce evidence condition- to preempt such explanations that begin with “probably”.
What I want is actual figures in how much ocean inertia affects/suppresses the influence of the Sun’s magnetic field influence on the earth’s temperature. This is the key to establishing how important this effect is.
Also remember that many here have suggested the diminution in the sunspot cycle in just the last cycle, is the one true explanation of why some temperature records show a plateau in the last 10 years, thus contradicting your claim of “common sense”.
Dave Springer says:
November 6, 2011 at 10:48 am
Volker Doormann says:
November 6, 2011 at 12:41 am
“It is senseless to give knowledge to a black hole.”
Actually that’s the meat of a famous (if you’re a theoretical physics afficionado, that is) between wager between perhaps the two most recognized living theoretical physicists in the world today, Leonard Susskind and Stephen Hawking. Hawking said information is lost forever to the universe when it enters a black hole. Susskind says information can’t be destroyed and you can’t even cheat by hiding it forever in a black hole. After ten years of theoretical bickering and input from every two bit theoretical physicist on the planet Hawking conceded.
So, you see, it isn’t senseless to throw information into a black hole! Write the down! 🙂
The Royal Academy of Science were convinced by Sir Robert Ball that communication with the planet Mars was a physical impossibility, because it would require a flag as large as Ireland, which it would be impossible to wave. That was in 1893.
This blog is read some million times probably because climate science authority Michael E. Mann says: “The scientific consensus regarding human-caused climate change is based on decades of work by thousands of scientists around the world.” and in comments this fallacy is recognized by readers as fallacy giving the reason.
Argumentum ad numerum fallacy: “All I’m saying is that thousands of people believe in pyramid power, so there must be something to it.”
Neither a great number of years of work nor a great number of scientists are valid arguments for truth.
On the level of science the object is what IS. But not all sayings are on the level of science. A lot of sayings in this world are suggestions to fool other people to win. But as it is well known in physics a win is only possible if another lost it. That what IS in not to be destroyed or multiplied.
To come to the point, the discovery I did with the solar tide function of celestial couples is free for everybody to discover, because recognition is owned by nobody. In any case each recognition must be done by the self. And nobody can destroy information.
What we call destruction is a process of transferring energy into another structure. This happened all the time because of the motivation to win.
Leif says about my plot: “ the blue curve is not the sum of the tides” . He is the authority. He wins.
But it does no change the information, which is to discover in each present.
What is to be changed with motivation is the balance of power.
But that is irrelevant to science.
V.
lgl says: “You are totally missing the point…”
I’m not missing the point. The PDO has nothing, nada, zip to do with surface temperature. It is a statistically prepared index that has been standardized, and greatly exaggerated through standardization.
“barry says:
November 5, 2011 at 11:57 pm
Werner,
I read the Pat Michaels page. I’ll comment on it if you do me the courtesy of commenting on the points I was making in my post first. That would be politer than completely ignoring it and expecting me to follow your lead. Thanks.”
Fair enough. You plotted several graphs. For example the HADCRUT3 graph for 1979 to 1999 had a certain positive slope. The HADCRUT3 graph for 1979 to 2011 had virtually the same positive slope. Your conclusion was that “Using only statistically significant periods, the trend in warming has not changed much post-1998.” However had you plotted just 1999 to 2011 for HADCRUT3, you would have gotten a negative or 0 slope. The significance of this negative or 0 slope of course is a different question.
In the interview with Phil Jones: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
“B – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
C – Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.”
Here, Phil Jones talks about two different trends while stating that both are not statistically significant. In my opinion, Judith Curry is exactly correct when she says there has not been much change since the late 90s. In your opinion, was she dead wrong to make this assertion? And if so, would it have been OK for her to say it if she had then added what Phil Jones said earlier, namely “but this trend is not statistically significant”. That assumes of course that this is indeed the case. I am not in a position to judge that, but see the quote below.
At the following, this quote is taken:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html
“Prof Ross McKittrick, a climate statistics expert from Guelph University in Ontario, added: ‘You don’t look for statistically significant evidence of a standstill.
‘You look for statistically significant evidence of change.”
Is he correct?
You won’t get actual figures because they’re not available. It would take a detailed study that would require a great deal of funding, but the vast majority of funds have been sent on one wild goose chase instead.
One common-sense argument for a sun-led temperature plateau in the last 10 years is that if you turn the flame under a pan of water down to minimum, the water stops heating up almost instantaneously. Just as you may earlier have turned down the flame a small amount below maximum but the water continued to heat up. Whether it’s actually a major part of the reason for the temperature plateau we don’t know, but the basic, common-sense physical analogy isn’t contradicted by events. Or, to put it another way, recent temperature trends are consistent with saucepan theory…
La Nina conditions are picking up with the warm pool above New Guinea building and the cold tongue developing off Sth America gaining strength. There is a deep low pressure off the coast of Japan with that area also having a large warm pool as is typical in cool PDO periods. The prevailing winds from the low pressure are pushing the warmer water to the south which is solid evidence for ONE case of the PDO driving the ENSO state.
The Australian BOM ENSO update should show a strengthening of the trade winds across the equator on Wednesday.
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
The severe NH winter outlook remains.
Seems like Occams razor is a good principle in the climate field.
Keith says
One common-sense argument for a sun-led temperature plateau in the last 10 years is that if you turn the flame under a pan of water down to minimum, the water stops heating up almost instantaneously. Just as you may earlier have turned down the flame a small amount below maximum but the water continued to heat up. Whether it’s actually a major part of the reason for the temperature plateau we don’t know, but the basic, common-sense physical analogy isn’t contradicted by events. Or, to put it another way, recent temperature trends are consistent with saucepan theory…
———–
Rather than rely in common sense I think you need to do the experiment for yourself.
Suspend a thermometer in a saucepan of water and adjust the heat so the temperature is something like 70C. Let it sit for a while to equilibrate. Let’s say for the sake if the argument it is at setting 3. Drop the setting to setting 2.
During the process record and graph the temperature.
If I interpret your comments accurately you believe the temperature should plateau. I predict that initially the temperature will drop off rapidly at first and then level off to a new constant temperature.
You also say in the first part of your comment that if the temperature is rising initially then after turning off the heat it will continue to rise. Perhaps, but I believe this is due to the thermal inertia of an electric hot plate. I predict this effect will not occur if you use a gas fire or use an electric heater and raise the heat setting incrementally.
These latter expectations are also verifiable or not by experiment.
You could even write an article for Anthony’s blog describing the experiment and explain how wonderful common sense is.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 6, 2011 at 3:22 am
Volker Doormann says:
November 6, 2011 at 12:41 am
“This method is unique. No one ever has shown such a simulation of the terrestrial climate inclusive a forecast for 1000 years.”
Not unique, there are plenty of us prepared to speculate.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/61
What we talk about is quality; the quality to verify and forecast terrestrial climate with methods of science.
It is different in quality, whether I say it will become cooler (or warmer) in the next 1000 years, -or what else ever – because there are century cycles of temperature in history which are correlated to the angular momentum of the Sun, or I say that the reconstructed terrestrial temperature frequencies of the past 2 or 5 millennia are strong related to tidal functions of real solar system couples, and the given global temperature spectrum can be verified in high fidelity up to the tidal frequency of the synodic frequency of the couple of Mercury and Venus of 1/39.7 days^-1 or 1/0.217 y^-1. And because of detected 11 bodies until now, which all are in general able to build precise tide functions in time, it is possible by this method to verify and forecast global temperature frequencies in high resolution of time.
The plot in your link – ‘Earth’s Future Climate’ – shows five data points for the next 1000 years created with your method of analysing the angular momentum of the Sun.
My method of summing up the tide functions of the planets is able to simulate the terrestrial climate from 5000 B.C.E. until 3000 C.E. with a time resolution of about better than 40 days.
This can be shown for a China sample:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi4n_china_yang33.gif
but also for the Hadcrut 3 data in high resolution:.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_10_hadcrut3a.gif
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_10_hadcrut3b.gif
As already said, spikes of terrestrial heat spikes cannot be part of this method, but the method can be used to separate such terrestrial heat spikes and thermal impedances of the surface of the Earth from the solar driven climate stream, and moreover it can be used to calibrate temperature proxy data precisely in time.
I have said, ‘No one ever has shown such a simulation of the terrestrial climate inclusive a forecast for 1000 years’.
“It’s one thing not to see the forest for the trees, but then to go on to deny the reality of the forest is a more serious matter.”
(Paul Weiss)
“Some people trying to put their head in the sand, not perceiving that there isn’t anymore sand actually.”
(Volker Doormann)
V.
R Gates,
But in general, there isn’t any conceivable way that models will add some new found process that will suddenly show that increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gases will not result in a warmer future in the long run , …
That is a stunning admission.
R Gates,
…. and furthermore, the current plateau in global temperatures is a general feature shown in many global climate models as likely occurring at various points during the course of the next century as we have a general trend upward in the long run. It would in fact be a negative against the accuracy and validity of those models if such periods did not occur!.
This out of one side of the mouth, while the other is making excuses:
Of course, the models don’t currently include all the effects that a quiet sun has on the climate (as they are either not fully know or not fully quantified). & Furthermore, you have no idea that models are always evolving to include more and more dynamical processes once those processes can be fully quantified?
Pick a lane, Gates. Are the current models accurately predicting the current lack of warming? Such that if this lack of warming were not occurring then the model’s accuracy would be questioned?
Or is the current lack of warming itself a negative against the accuracy and validity of the models, such that ajustments need to be made (low level volcanos, Chinese SO2, the magnitude of the effect of the Sun which is now ‘quiet’, etc) to account for this lack of warming?
You can’t cool your cake and bake it, too.
Volker Doormann says:
November 7, 2011 at 5:57 am
What we talk about is quality; the quality to verify and forecast terrestrial climate with methods of science.
Your statement is offensive. My research is based on JPL data of 6000 years with a daily resolution if required.
The plot in your link – ‘Earth’s Future Climate’ – shows five data points for the next 1000 years created with your method of analysing the angular momentum of the Sun.
Incorrect, there are six data points that are derived from many thousands of data points at a lower level. I am predicting solar output which is one important part of climate, solar output is governed by the amount of solar downturn experienced through solar grand minima that occur on a regular basis over the Holocene. This is all that is needed for predicting solar output at a higher level. I suggest you read the rest of my website and paper before making assumptions.
I am not sure what your research is suggesting, is it tidal effects on earths oceanic systems or tidal effects on solar output? If it is the latter you will need to expand your data as Leif suggests along with showing a repeating modulating frequency (around 172 years) that aligns with each grand minimum over the Holocene.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 7, 2011 at 3:29 pm
Volker Doormann says:
November 7, 2011 at 5:57 am
What we talk about is quality; the quality to verify and forecast terrestrial climate with methods of science.
I tracked down the source of this “quality” and will let others judge. A document outlining Doormanns principles on tidal effects can be found at http://www.volker-doormann.org/ghi_solar_s.pdf
You will note that the main reference used to calculate the tidal effects is Quaoar (a small 900 km rock in the Kuiper belt out past Neptune) and Pluto. On other graphs Neptune, Uranus, Saturn and Jupiter are added to Quaoar and Pluto to produce an outcome.
Basic physics tells us that objects outside of Jupiter have almost immeasurable impact when considering tidal forces.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 7, 2011 at 8:10 pm
Basic physics tells us that objects outside of Jupiter have almost immeasurable impact when considering tidal forces.
But as Volker says in his closing statement:
“However, as the gaps between most disciplines in science including philosophy and astrology, are still deep, new sights are always only valuable for them who have an open mind”
In astrology, basic physics has no home.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 7, 2011 at 3:29 pm
Volker Doormann says:
November 7, 2011 at 5:57 am
“What we talk about is quality; the quality to verify and forecast terrestrial climate with methods of science.”
I am predicting solar output which is one important part of climate, solar output is governed by the amount of solar downturn experienced through solar grand minima that occur on a regular basis over the Holocene. This is all that is needed for predicting solar output at a higher level.
That what you have predicted in an image ‘Future.png’ are six data points of an angular momentum for the millennium in the future.
That’s your quality to forecast terrestrial climate.
I am not sure what your research is suggesting, is it tidal effects on earths oceanic systems or tidal effects on solar output? If it is the latter you will need to expand your data as Leif suggests along with showing a repeating modulating frequency (around 172 years) that aligns with each grand minimum over the Holocene.
Well, we are talking about the quality to verify and forecast climate with methods of science, and I have given my arguments in graphs. The graph shows the global temperature simulation of 6000 years ! using time increments of 1 year.
It seems to me that it is senseless to give such graph here.
From Bond et al. a FFT heat power frequency of ~1/1800 years^-1 is known of about twelve periods back for 12000 years.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_23_cycle_bond.gif
The precise length of the Bond cycle is 1827 years, two times of 913.5 years and equal to the periods of warm times or cold times. Because of the eccentricity of Pluto there are mostly three exact tide events in some two centuries.
Comparing the data from China (Wang), or from T. Edwards (Columbia Ice Field) it is evident that the solar tide function of the couple Pluto and Quaoar (f = 2/1827 years^-1) fits well in the past with the temperature proxies:
http:/volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_jux2.gif
I do not make use the synodic cycle of Uranus/Neptun [ c = 1/( (1/84.0133)-(1/164.79345) = 171.389 years ]. I take the real tide function (~ 85.7 years)..
Expanding the time scale, the GHI 6++ can be compared with the Data of hadcrut3:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_11_hadcrut3.gif
This plot can be expanded to the year 3000 AD.
It wound be a pleasure to me if you can show me such quality with your method.
Omar Chayyam has done a new calendar. An authority of Islam has argued his calender is nonsense, because Omar drinks wine.
If no one is interested in the method to forecast the global climate in high resolution of month, because it fits not with Sir Newton idea of gravitation, it’s OK. But it isn’t science.
V.
It seems you misunderstand a little bit (this is why I tend to avoid analogies…) Allow me to pad it out and add some approximate numbers:
Take a pan of water from the cold tap, about 15C, and put it on a gas hob (year c.1700). Ignite the hob ring and set the flame to half power, until the water temperature reaches 50C (year c.1910). Now turn the flame to maximum power and heat the water until it reaches 90C (year c.1990). At this point, turn the flame down to three-quarters power, which should still be enough to boil the water, and wait until the temperature reaches 95C (year c.2000). Next, bring the flame down a small amount and watch the temperature reach a steady state for a while (year c.2009). Finally, turn the flame back down to half power or less, not off, and watch the temperature immediately start to drop (this decade and, perhaps, longer).
Heating began with a moderate heat source. This heating then accelerated under the influence of a maxed-out heat source. As the heat source was slowly turned down, heating continued for a short while, until a further decrease in power saw the temperature level off for a period. Once the power was turned well down, temperature dropped right away.
It’s not just fluctuations (and their directions) that are important, but the absolute level too.
I’ll save the analogy of the car accelerator pedal for another time.
Geoff, Volker is offering a veiled hint about the moon. Remember confounding.
Paul Vaughan says:
November 9, 2011 at 7:43 am
Geoff, Volker is offering a veiled hint about the moon. Remember confounding.
Veiled hints have no value. If one has something to say, say it!
Paul Vaughan says:
November 9, 2011 at 7:43 am
I see no point in conversing with Volker, his work has no scientific basis and he shows no intention of understanding other peoples work to the point of being rude.
Geoff Sharp says:
November 9, 2011 at 6:57 pm
I see no point in conversing with Volker, his work has no scientific basis ..
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#hominem
The basis of conversation in science are arguments; personal viewpoints or/and sayings are no arguments.
Science is not equal physics. Science is (p.e.) the discovery that an area of a square format has a square function to it sides. There is no physics involved.
EOD
V.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/physics.htm
Scale symmetry isn’t a feature of most physical systems, but it occurs naturally at boundaries such as coastlines and thus sampling geometry patently canNOT be ignored.