Ian H. Bryce writes at Jo Nova’s website:
The thing that intrigued me about the maximum temperatures is the high peaks, which occur at the peak of the odd solar cycles, and four other times, when we had strong El Nino events. (Most recently, three in four years) It is interesting to note that we did not have the Super EL Nino in 1998!
One wonders when our climate scientists graph global mean temperatures for tens of thousands of stations worldwide, that they “miss the wood for the trees.” I contacted the BOM some time ago about this phenomenon, but I have not had a reply yet. (Surprising?)
Read the entire fascinating article at Jo Nova’s website.
UPDATE: Willis finds some serious problems and posts in comments:
Not sure why I usually end up being the one to rain on the parade, but I’ve accepted my lot in life. Here is the Echuca data plotted against the peaks of the solar cycles, as measured by sunspot counts.
A couple things of note. First, he has misidentified the Cycle 11 peak, it happens earlier. Second, he is very vague about the timing of the cycles. Yes, the high years occurred during those cycles, but if we look at the actual peak year of each cycle, some happen two years before the peak temperatures, some three years before, some four years before, and some show no relation at all to the peak temperatures.
Sorry … but that’s the real data, and the sunspot/temperature correlation doesn’t hold up in the slightest.
SOURCES:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@Willis E
How we look has zero impact on natural climate variations, so it’s irrelevant. I don’t share your devotion to political cosmetics.
Meaningless p-values &/or lack of local stat significance is due to fundamentally ignorant &/or deceptive hypothesis tests based on unphysical assumptions.
Move on to well-constrained variables & summaries. I’ve pointed the way.
@Scottish Sceptic (June 25, 2012 at 4:32 pm)
Addendum to Paul Vaughan (June 28, 2012 at 7:50 am)
You could use tuned local (windowed) cross-correlation.
For example, Ninderthana could use such an approach to investigate the nonstationarity of the anharmonicity to which he has directed our attention.
False assumption of stationarity smears centrally limited modulation out into a low temporally-global raised “noise” floor, making it difficult (impossible for a hair-splitting synthesizer) to detect acoustic resonance against the background of higher-amplitude ENSO.
The paradigmatic key is to recognize that we are dealing not with a single stationary oscillator, but rather an infinite population of tightly-coupled quasi-stationary oscillators.
A variety of approaches are discussed here:
Ghil+ (2002). Advanced spectral methods for climatic time series. Reviews of Geophysics 40, 1. http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~ide/data/research/publication/ssa_revgeophys02.pdf
Caution: The authors fundamentally underestimate the flexibility of wavelet methods.
Apologies to all.
Above I posted a graph with a cryptic legend. I now offer clarification…
There are easy ways to verify some of Piers Corbyn’s claims.
Solar Coronal Holes & Earth Rotation:
http://i46.tinypic.com/2yw7711.png
CH = Coronal Holes
nCRm = neutron Count Rate (moscow)
M.5 & P.5 = Schwabe-extent (11 year) Morlet & Paul wavelet power of semi-annual Length of Day (LOD)
These observations are well-constrained by:
A. Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum (LCAM).
B. Central Limit Theorem (CLT).
B empowers us to “see through & beyond” interannual (ENSO-timescale) variations with grace & ease. The paradigmatic key is to recognize that we are dealing not with a single stationary oscillator, but rather an infinite population of tightly-coupled quasi-stationary oscillators. (By the way, I’ve now determined from the literature trail that this result was actually known to some as far back as at least 1980. This raises a lot of questions…)
Best Regards to All.
Paul Vaughan says:
June 29, 2012 at 4:00 pm
Not a clue what you are referring to here, Paul, it’s way too cryptic.
Thanks, Paul. Unfortunately, you haven’t pointed the way to anything. Instead you’ve come in and made a host of claims that I don’t understand things, but you haven’t said what it is I don’t understand. More importantly, you have not provided any backup, support, or citations for your claims. All you’ve done is engage in paternalistic, unpleasant personal attacks that do not point the way to anything except your overweening arrogance.
Paul, you may indeed be as smart as you clearly think you are. You may know much, much, much more than anyone here, as you obviously believe.
But as long as you continue to limit yourself to your specious ad hominem attacks, how will we ever find out if you are that smart? How about you come up with some specific objections to my SCIENCE, rather than attacking what you see as my abysmal ignorance? You see, it doesn’t matter if I’m a blithering idiot, Paul, the only real question is whether my scientific claims are true or false.
So if you disagree with something I said, here’s how to get some traction.
1. QUOTE WHAT IT IS THAT I SAID THAT YOU ARE OBJECTING TO. Saying I’m “ignorant” is meaningless, Paul, it is nothing but an ad hominem attack that merely exposes your own ignorance of how to discuss science. It says nothing about the location or nature of any mistakes I might have made. It is critical that you quote the exact words that you disagree with, so we both know what it is you are disputing.
2. Once you have quoted what you are objecting to, then point out exactly where and why it is wrong. Don’t bother with attacking my morals by doing something like claiming that I’m being “deceptive” as you do above. That doesn’t count in science. Either you can point to my scientific claims that you say are wrong, and explain why they are wrong, or you can’t. So far, you have provided no evidence that you can do either one.
3. Once you have pointed to where you think I’ve made an error, and pointed out why you think it’s wrong, you need to provide citations, logical arguments, references, data, computer programs, and anything else you can think of that will support your claims. Because I can assure you that your unsupported word is meaningless in this forum. You need to do things like line up the big guns on your side, provide irrefutable evidence, come up with unassailable logic, and/or link to clear expositions of your thoughts.
I hope you do that. For a man who claims to be so knowledgeable about science, you sure don’t seem to know how it works and how to win the game … because I can assure you, calling your opponent “ignorant” won’t win you anything in science, quite the opposite, it just loses you points and leads people to cancel your vote before you’ve even begun.
All the best,
w.
w.
There’s no time for all that Willis.
Exploration demands the lion’s share of attention at this stage.
For example, see the top panel (“Synchronization (increasing down)”) of p.11 here: http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/santafe/papers/Climateshifts.pdf
Note the perfect match with lgl’s Hale graph:
http://virakkraft.com/Echuca-max-temp-sSSN.png
And do you realize ENSO LF power has a 22 year cycle?
(Tune to 4.5 year grain & 22 year extent.)
Cheers.