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.
Paul Vaughan says:
November 10, 2011 at 8:49 am
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.
And isn’t.
Earth itself aliases & integrates — and it doesn’t do so uniformly.
Paul Vaughan says:
November 10, 2011 at 3:05 pm
Earth itself aliases & integrates — and it doesn’t do so uniformly.
So you assume, provide an example. When scientists try to provide global values of something they also integrate properly. You assume everyone else but you are morons.
Aliasing: The asymmetries of the magnetic field differ from those of climate (for example ocean-continent heat-capacity contrast). The dominant variations are clearly orbital (Earth’s tilt) – no argument there – but there’s a small amount of signal aliased from solar cycles (Hale & Schwabe, the relative importance of which depends on the particular geophysical variable). You guys missed something (OR you have to keep it out of public knowledge for whatever important reason – understandable if so). You could easily finish off the work you’ve started (RC effect etc. – remember your 22 year residuals pattern?) – and extend it by parallel analogy to climate. Geomagnetic aa index anomalies have the exact same twist 1915-45 and they share other features with EOP. It’s all within reach by people with your resources (I don’t have the time & particularly the computing resources needed to finish the spatial calculations) as soon as the aliasing is recognized (unless there’s some important reason why this mustn’t become public – if so, understandable).
Integration: Physical leveraging (e.g. land-ocean heat-capacity contrast) introduces spatial paradoxes that aren’t being interpreted properly (at least by central-mainstream climate scientists — maybe some on the periphery understand much better, but perhaps their voices have less reach).
Paul Vaughan says:
November 10, 2011 at 5:44 pm
The asymmetries of the magnetic field differ from those of climate
Since they have nothing to do with each other whatever differences you think there might be are not relevant.
The dominant variations are clearly orbital (Earth’s tilt) – no argument there – but there’s a small amount of signal aliased from solar cycles (Hale & Schwabe, the relative importance of which depends on the particular geophysical variable)
There is an expected 0.1K solar cycle effect, that is all, and that is not an aliasing, unless you simply mean that the signals are in phase.
You guys missed something (OR you have to keep it out of public knowledge for whatever important reason – understandable if so).
Nonsense, don’t believe in such conspiracy theories.
You could easily finish off the work you’ve started (RC effect etc. – remember your 22 year residuals pattern?)
The RC effect and its consequences are well-understood. No surprises there
and extend it by parallel analogy to climate.
And have no effect on the climate.
Geomagnetic aa index anomalies have the exact same twist 1915-45
Don’t know what you are referring to. The ‘anomalies’ involve a calibration error in 1954 and a change of observer in 1938 and both are well-understood. You ‘twist’ must be some special spatio-temporal jargon that is unknown to me. I know of helicity and writhes, but ‘twist’? other than a dance from my youth.
and they share other features with EOP.
wiggle matching with no physical basis.
It’s all within reach by people with your resources (I don’t have the time & particularly the computing resources needed to finish the spatial calculations)
There are no spatial calculations.
as soon as the aliasing is recognized (unless there’s some important reason why this mustn’t become public – if so, understandable).
Non-existing conspiracy again.
Integration: Physical leveraging (e.g. land-ocean heat-capacity contrast) introduces spatial paradoxes that aren’t being interpreted properly
Completely unfounded, scientists are very well aware of this and it is taken into account fully.
There are no ‘paradoxes’.
You’re again misunderstanding that I’m suggesting a magnetic driver for climate; what I’m actually doing is drawing attention to the source of CONFOUNDING (that leads to some of the speculation we see from others).
There most definitely are paradoxes. You’re well outside of your area of expertise if you think otherwise. Just a few examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modifiable_areal_unit_problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_analysis
The heat-capacity of land LEVERAGES stats, including temperature gradients that drive the pressure gradient force. This isn’t controversial at all. Boundaries in the northern hemisphere have a higher fractal dimension.
Since you assert there are no secrets, you and your colleagues have definitely missed something very simple & very important (the multivariate quasi-discrete asymmetric aliasing). This key piece of the puzzle is relevant for geomagnetic aa index, climate, & EOP. In light of what the data reveal, your conceptualization of the nature of the 0.1K effect appears unsound (but we do agree that the effect is small).
Take some time to think more carefully about p.4 here:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/vaughn-sun-earth-moon-harmonies-beats-biases.pdf
Paul Vaughan says:
November 10, 2011 at 9:15 pm
You’re again misunderstanding that I’m suggesting a magnetic driver for climate; what I’m actually doing is drawing attention to the source of CONFOUNDING (that leads to some of the speculation we see from others).
I think you are confounding something here. There is no confounding going on.
There most definitely are paradoxes. You’re well outside of your area of expertise if you think otherwise. Just a few examples:
But these are not paradoxes. They are well-understood and not controversial.
This key piece of the puzzle is relevant for geomagnetic aa index, climate, & EOP.
Not at all. Since climate and EOP are complicated, try to explain what that piece is for aa.
In light of what the data reveal, your conceptualization of the nature of the 0.1K effect appears unsound (but we do agree that the effect is small).
A 0.1% solar-cycle change in solar input of energy to the Earth leads to a 0.025% change of temperature [one quarter], which comes to 0.07K. Rounded up to 0.1K.
Take some time to think more carefully about p.4 here:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/vaughn-sun-earth-moon-harmonies-beats-biases.pdf
No such document.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 10, 2011 at 11:31 pm
No such document.
Finally loaded. But all there is is a bunch of curve fits, so no meat and nothing worth thinking about.
You’re not being reasonable. You insist on simplifying the narrative to averages when it is GRADIENTS that drive circulation. And those aren’t curve fits.
Leif Svalgaard (November 10, 2011 at 11:31 pm) ignoring Simpson’s Paradox:
“A 0.1% solar-cycle change in solar input of energy to the Earth leads to a 0.025% change of temperature [one quarter], which comes to 0.07K. Rounded up to 0.1K.”
Where? Are you suggesting the terrestrial solar cycle marker is UNIFORM across the surface, across day & night, across winter & summer, across land & ocean, etc.? No spatial differentials? And no circulatory component?!!!
If so, your assumptions are patently untenable, your conceptualization is RAZED by the data, you’re ignoring what has been right in front of everyone’s eyes, and your grasp of sampling & aggregation fundamentals is SEVERELY lacking.
Or perhaps you’re simply NOT communicating in good faith.
Paul Vaughan says:
November 11, 2011 at 7:23 am
Where? Are you suggesting the terrestrial solar cycle marker is UNIFORM across the surface, across day & night, across winter & summer, across land & ocean, etc.? No spatial differentials? And no circulatory component?!!!
Yes, the input is indeed uniform, we see the same sun no matter where we are. The rotation of the Earth and the circulation of the atmosphere and oceans distribute that energy all over the globe.
This key piece of the puzzle is relevant for geomagnetic aa index, climate, & EOP.
Not at all. Since climate and EOP are complicated, try to explain what that piece is for aa.
Obfuscation. You know very well I was not referring to the input. You remain unwilling to communicate in good faith.
Paul Vaughan says:
November 11, 2011 at 8:15 am
You know very well I was not referring to the input.
It is the input that determines the response of the system. Regions may have different response, but when properly averaged over the globe will match that determined by the input.
But you just wallop in generality and ignore the specific issue. You said: “This key piece of the puzzle is relevant for geomagnetic aa index, climate, & EOP.”
I asked you to specifically and clearly and in detail explain what that piece is for aa.
Leif Svalgaard (November 12, 2011 at 11:56 am) wrote:
“[…] when properly averaged over the globe […]”
Seeds of awareness. Fractal geometry of diffuse & abrupt boundaries. Leveraging. Simpson’s Paradox. Spatiotemporal aliasing. Modifiable Areal Unit Problem. These are heavy issues.
As for your request: If & when volunteer time & priorities permit over the months & years ahead.
Paul Vaughan says:
November 12, 2011 at 7:52 pm
Seeds of awareness. Fractal geometry of diffuse & abrupt boundaries. Leveraging. Simpson’s Paradox. Spatiotemporal aliasing. Modifiable Areal Unit Problem. These are heavy issues.
And I’m sure that the thousands of scientists that are dealing with these issues every day recognize that and deal with in a suitable manner. I certainly do in my own work.
As for your request: If & when volunteer time & priorities permit over the months & years ahead.
Well, not good enough. You made a specific claim about the aa-index. Without having already done the analysis you are not in the position to make your claim.
Leif Svalgaard (November 12, 2011 at 7:59 pm) wrote:
“And I’m sure that the thousands of scientists that are dealing with these issues every day recognize that and deal with in a suitable manner. I certainly do in my own work.”
They do the best they can.
Leif Svalgaard (November 12, 2011 at 7:59 pm)
“Without having already done the analysis […]”
So you’re falsely assuming.
Again: I’ll address your request if & when volunteer time & priorities permit over the months & years ahead.
Paul Vaughan says:
November 12, 2011 at 8:34 pm
“Without having already done the analysis […]“
So you’re falsely assuming.
Again: I’ll address your request if & when volunteer time & priorities permit over the months & years ahead.
So, your lack of explanation is showing.
Paul Vaughan says:
November 12, 2011 at 8:34 pm
“Without having already done the analysis […]“
So you’re falsely assuming.
I’m interested in knowing how you applied: “Seeds of awareness. Fractal geometry of diffuse & abrupt boundaries. Leveraging. Simpson’s Paradox. Spatiotemporal aliasing. Modifiable Areal Unit Problem” to the construction of the aa-index. Which you claim to have already done, so it should not take you long to tell us. On the other hand, if you have not, then I can readily see that it might take years…
@Leif Svalgaard
On the other thread [ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/10/aurora-borealis-and-surface-temperature-cycles-linked/#comment-795634 ] you complained about not being able to attract enough funding. I can suggest that, as step 1, you focus on your research instead of protracted petty blog disputes. (If you cannot accomplish this independently, I can suggest that the moderators consider offering a helping hand.) You’re harassing a volunteer to help you do what you’re paid (well) to do. My focus must shift to the work that I am paid to do for the next 5 days.
Paul Vaughan says:
November 13, 2011 at 8:22 am
You’re harassing a volunteer to help you do what you’re paid (well) to do.
I’m asking someone who is making silly claims to back them up.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/10/aurora-borealis-and-surface-temperature-cycles-linked/#comment-795634
Paul Vaughan says:
November 13, 2011 at 9:24 pm
Your comment is vacuous http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/10/aurora-borealis-and-surface-temperature-cycles-linked…
Stay on topic.
Leif Svalgaard (November 13, 2011 at 10:13 pm)
misquotes what I wrote.
Further evidence that Leif Svalgaard does not communicate in good faith — same point Dr. Nicola Scafetta was making where I actually linked:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/10/aurora-borealis-and-surface-temperature-cycles-linked/#comment-795634
As indicated in response to Leif Svalgaard’s off-topic request:
1. My focus must shift to the work that I am paid to do for the next 5 days.
2. I’ll address your request if & when volunteer time & priorities permit over the months & years ahead.
Cease with the harassment.
Paul Vaughan says:
November 14, 2011 at 5:32 am
Cease with the harassment.
Inquiring minds want to know. Your posts as you say touch upon ‘heavy issues’. You do seem to have time for continued stream of comments diluting the content. So perhaps you have time for simply yes/no questions. You state “Seeds of awareness. Fractal geometry of diffuse & abrupt boundaries. Leveraging. Simpson’s Paradox. Spatiotemporal aliasing. Modifiable Areal Unit Problem” should be used in the construction of the aa-index, and that you have already done the research. So it should be easy to answer yes/no to the following:
1) did you use ‘seeds of awareness’ for this Y/N
2) did you use ‘fractal geometry’ for this Y/N
3) did you use ‘leveraging’ for this Y/N
4) did you succumb to ‘Simpson’s Paradox’ Y/N
5) did the ‘modifiable Areal Unit problem’ directly play a role for this Y/N
You see, when you make such claims, you just put yourself up for something like this. You can, of course, avoid further attention, simply by stating that your ‘issues’ do not apply, after all.