An article in the New Scientist says:
But Dr. Leif Svalgaard, one of the worlds leading solar physicists and WUWT’s resident solar expert has this to say:
Solar max is a slippery concept. One can be more precise and *define* solar max for a given hemisphere as the time when the polar fields reverse in the hemisphere. The reversals usually differ by one or two years, so solar max will similarly differ. The North is undergoing reversal right now, so has reached maximum. The South is lagging, but already the polar field is rapidly decreasing, so reversal may be only a year away. Such asymmetry is very common.
Here is a link to the evolution of the polar fields as measured at WSO:
http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png
And here’s data all the way back to 1966, note there has not been a crossing of the polar fields yet in 2012, a typical event at solar max:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Polar-Fields-1966-now.png
Here is a link to a talk on this: http://www.leif.org/research/ click
on paper 1540.
Dr. Svalgaard adds:
Solar max happens at different times for each hemisphere. In the North we are *at* max right now. For the South there is another year to go, but ‘max’ for a small cycle like 24 is a drawn out affair and will last several years. To say that max falls on a given date, e.g. Jan 3rd, 2013, at UT 04:15 is meaningless.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sun is not a free oscillator. Sun is a coupled oscillator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coupled_oscillators.gif
see two oscillating parameters in my graph represented by the equation with two components
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm
or click on my name for polar field oscillations
Sun is not a free oscillator. Sun is a forced coupled oscillator !
Jan P Perlwitz:
At September 30, 2012 at 3:48 pm you provide more lies (n.b. demonstrable lies and not merely falsehoods) when you write
1.
You assert that you agree the IPCC and the IPCC chose the considered period, NOT the “skeptics”.
2.
The reasoning that the “15 years of a “flat” temperature trend make all the difference compared to the examples in the animation” is because the IPCC says it does.
In consideration of your posts here there has been a recent discussion of whether you are a liar or a fool. Your statements that I am writing to answer (and quote above in this answer) are undisputable proof that you are a liar (but they do not prove you are not a fool). I explain as follows.
At September 29, 2012 at 2:24 pm
I pointed out the IPCC prediction of “committed warming” and I said
Please note that the time period of “the first two decades of this century” is defined by the IPCC and NOT the “skeptics”.
At September 29, 2012 at 4:26 pm
You replied to that by claiming (a) I had repeatedly stated unspecified falsehoods and (b) you have repeatedly answered the point. Both those claims were untrue.
At September 30, 2012 at 12:13 am
I refuted those claims and expressed my amazement that a representative of GISS would make such statements in response to an observation of an empirical fact.
At September 30, 2012 at 8:33 am
I provided an explanation with links and quotations of the IPCC AR4 which explained my true and accurate statement which said
Importantly, it said
Importantly, in this context, the last TEN years is of immense importance and the fact that there has been no significant global temperature rise for the last 15 years emphasises that importance.
At September 30, 2012 at 9:03 am
you attempted to obfuscate the point with a non sequitur.
At September 30, 2012 at 9:24 am
Bart replied to that obfuscation saying to you
At September 30, 2012 at 9:46 am
I explained how and why your response was – and is – a non sequitur.
You have ignored that but have provided your post at September 30, 2012 at 3:48 pm which asserts
(a) “The graphic illustrates the dishonest approach by “skeptics” supported by you to cherry pick a too small time period”
NO! It incorporates more than half of the time period specified by the IPCC which you claim to accept.
(b) “which is dominated by internal natural variability on an interannual time scale, from the temperature time series to support the assertion that global warming “has stopped”, “ceased” or similar.”
The “similar” is that the “committed warming has disappeared”. IT HAS.
(c) “What is your scientific reasoning that 15 years of a “flat” temperature trend make all the difference compared to the examples in the animation?”
The IPCC AR4 says the first two decades of this century have that “difference” because of the asserted “committed warming”. You say you accept the IPCC AR4 statements but are disputing those statements.
(d) “It’s not like you (well, maybe not you) wouldn’t find any partial time series from the last 40 years of about the same length, which looks very similar to the “flat” temperature record of the last 15 years.”
That is another non sequitur: it is the present and previous decades which the IPCC – so YOU – say should warm at 0.2°C per decade as a result of “committed warming” and not any previous times.
In conclusion, your words and your actions in this thread prove beyond any possibility of doubt that you are a liar.
Richard
****
Leif Svalgaard says:
September 30, 2012 at 4:52 pm
E.M.Smith says:
September 30, 2012 at 4:41 pm
But look at the temperature history in the graph from the jonova link:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
For us lazy critters, could you mark the mins and maxs of the lunar tidal cycle on this graph.
****
Here’s your chance EM, for a landmark breakthrough. 🙂
Honestly, I am interested, as ocean changes have the potential for large heat-transport changes.
Geoff Sharp says:
September 30, 2012 at 11:17 pm
Nevanlinna (2004), Clilverd et al (2005), Matini/Mursula (2004,2006,2008), Demetrescu/Dobrica (2008)
Not good enough. Show where in those you see “Criticisms ranged from using average records through to cherry picking of individual stations”. and “because it was found erroneous by your peers”. Those statements are false.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
September 30, 2012 at 11:02 pm
But as I see when reading about helioseismology, it does have oscillations (milli-Hertz range) and standing waves. And torsional oscillations
Those are small local vibrations, not the Sun vibrating as a system. And the ‘torsional oscillation’ is a misnamed variation of a system of winds in the sun. It would be like calling the trade winds in the Earth atmosphere ‘oscillations’.
Bart says:
September 30, 2012 at 10:29 pm
I don’t care to tell you what is wrong
Put up or shut up.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 1, 2012 at 5:48 am
Geoff Sharp says:
September 30, 2012 at 11:17 pm
Nevanlinna (2004), Clilverd et al (2005), Matini/Mursula (2004,2006,2008), Demetrescu/Dobrica (2008)
“Not good enough. Show where in those you see “Criticisms ranged from using average records through to cherry picking of individual stations”. and “because it was found erroneous by your peers”. Those statements are false.”
Nevanlinna said your original IHV data was erroneous as I am sure you are aware. The rest will be summarized in a proper illustration of this whitewash attempt in due course.
Geoff Sharp says:
October 1, 2012 at 7:18 am
Nevanlinna said your original IHV data was erroneous as I am sure you are aware.
Here is what Nevanlinna (2004) said:
“1: Note, however, the criticism introduced by Svalgaard et al. (2003) concerning the secular trend of the aa-series in the 20th century, that have been claimed to be erroneous.”
He notes that I claim that the trend in aa is erroneous
“2: Thanks are given to L. Svalgaard and R. Pirjola for their valuable comments on the manuscript.”
Nothing about IHV being erroneous.
Next false statement, please.
richardscourtney wrote in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1096629
and
Your whole comment in reply to my precious comment only circles around what “the IPCC” said something about “committed warming”, and that I said in some other comment I agreed with the IPCC Report. I actually said essentially.
(http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1095148)
It doesn’t mean I agree with every aspect, detail or word what is written there. As much to that.
I asked for scientific arguments why you think those 15 years make all the difference compared to the time periods shown in the animation, even though one can find a 16-year time period, 1980 to 1995, which looks very, very similar to the recent 15 years:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1980/to:1995/plot/gistemp/from:1980/to:1995/trend/plot/uah/from:1980/to:1995/plot/uah/from:1980/to:1995/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/to:1995/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/to:1995/trend/plot/rss/from:1980/to:1995/plot/rss/from:1980/to:1995/trend
“Because the IPCC says so!” is not a scientific argument. It’s a childish response. How old are you? 12? Your reply does not contain any single scientific argument about what is different in the Earth system now compared to the time period 1980-1995, to draw the conclusion, according to which this time wasn’t just another wobble within an overall intact long-term upward trend of the globally averaged temperature anomaly, compared to the time period 1980-1985, which was such a wobble. And you know why that is? Because you don’t have any!
That’s why you once more, like you and your friends here have done this before again and again, divert from the scientific question, which I raised in my comment, and you write yet another comment with a noisy and vicious ad personam attack against me. There is a pattern in your behavior. If the scientific argument can’t be made, attack the opponent personally instead, insult him/her, denigrate him/her, smear him/her, make libelous accusations against him/her etc. That’s why you are not rightfully called skeptics, that’s why you are “skeptics” with quotation marks around it. You are no true skeptics (There are some true skeptics out there. Those I respect). You are fake skeptics. And what motivates you? No, scientific curiosity doesn’t motivate you for your behavior. You are likely motivated by an economical, political or ideological agenda, Mr. Coal-Magazine-Editor.
Back to the recent 15-year period and what the IPCC allegedly says about “committed warming”. Mr. Courtney asserts that “committed warming” hasn’t happened, and can’t happen until the year 2020 for reasons of physics.
Mr. Courtney quotes in one of his precious comments,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1095773
something from the IPCC Report 2007, Volume 1:
Committed climate change (see Box TS.9) due to atmospheric composition in the year 2000 corresponds to a warming trend of about 0.1°C per decade over the next two decades, in the absence of large changes in volcanic or solar forcing. About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) would be expected if emissions were to fall within the range of the SRES marker scenarios.
(http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-5-1.html)
So far so good.
Mr. Courtney asserts in the same comment:
He repeats similar statements in following comments. Apparently by calculating the trend over a cherry picked 10 year or 15-year period, which is dominated by internal natural variability that masks the multi-decadal trend. From this he claims it was not possible that the temperature increase will be 0.2 K/decade in the year 2020.
1. What if we were in the year 1995, when we had a very similar picture in the temperature record as today as I have shown? Mr. Courtney probably would have made the same arguments.
Let’s look at the trend analysis for the two decades from 1991 to 2010. You can do it here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
Enter start year 1980 and end year 2000. Do the calculation. It gives you the trend plus the 2-sigma interval. The results for the 20-year trend of the surface temperature anomaly are:
GISTEMP: 0.144 +/- 0.120 K/decade
NOAA: 0.170 +/- 0.106 K/decade
HADCRUT3v: 0.169 +/- 0.116 K/decade
HADCRUT4: 0.177 +/- 0.109 K/decade
Average: 0.165 K/decade
The average trend over the two decades was 0.165 K/decade from those data sets. A little bit smaller, if one doesn’t use HADCRUT3v for the average of the data sets. So, yes, it could be the decadal trend over 2 decades will be smaller than 0.2 K/decade in 2020. But back then, it didn’t change anything about the overall intact multi-decadal upward trend. The “flat” temperature record of the period 1980-1995 was only a wobble.
So, I repeat my question. What are the scientific arguments for the assertion it was all different this time compared to the period 1980-1995?
2. My guess is, now Mr. Courtney will insist on “But the IPCC said 0.2 K/decade”, not 0.165 K/decade.
So what? Does it mean global warming has “ceased”, “stopped”, if the trend was 0.165 K/decade between 2001 and 2020, instead of 0.2 K/decade? Certainly not.
And the IPCC doesn’t say it must be exact 0.2 K/decade. It says about 0.2 K/decade, of which about 0.1 K/decade are committed. As one can see from the figure, there is an uncertainty range, also for the committed increase:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-ts-26.html
The “about 0.2 K/decade” is the ensemble mean prediction, calculated from all the model realizations. Nature provides only one realization. We can’t restart Nature for the same boundary conditions and randomly perturbed initial conditions to get a statistical sample with sample size > 1. There is no reasonable argument why a single random realization from all possible realizations of a statistical population must be equal to the average of a sample that is an estimate of the mean of the population. If the single realization is within a defined uncertainty range, one can’t draw a valid conclusion, according to which the single realization doesn’t belong to the population.
I also want to point out that there are conditions made in the quote above from the IPCC report, cited by Mr. Courtney, for the about 0.2 K/decade increase, which are:
in the absence of large changes in volcanic or solar forcing.
In reality, at least solar forcing has decreased in the previous decade. Some predict it is going to decrease further in the next years. This has to be taken into account also, when doing an honest comparison between the prediction from the IPCC Report and real world data.
3. Mr. Courtney believes that physics wouldn’t allow the prediction of the IPCC report of a temperature increase of about 0.2 K/decade becoming true for the time period 2001-2020. He asserts:
(http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1096629)
Mr. Courtney seems to believe it can’t happen because the oceans were a drag on the temperature increase in the atmosphere. He doesn’t get it. The ocean aren’t a drag, they are ahead of the atmosphere with respect to heat accumulation. The overwhelming amount of the additional energy due to the perturbation of the radiation balance by the increasing greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere goes directly into heating the oceans. The oceans heat the atmosphere, not the other way around. According to the recent estimate by Levitus et al, GRL, (2012), doi: 10.1029/2012GL051106, of the heat anomaly magnitude within the upper 2000 m of the oceans, if the additional heat accumulated since 1955 in the upper 2000 m was released at once into the troposphere, it would heat up the troposphere by 36 K or 65 F (sic!). This is just an illustration of the magnitude. It’s not going to happen. The troposphere is not going to heat by 36 K due to the ocean heat anomaly. Most of the energy will be radiated back to space over time.
From the conclusions of the Levitus et al. (2012) paper:
[21] We have estimated an increase of 24×10^22 J representing a volume mean warming of 0.09 C of the 0–2000 m layer of the World Ocean. If this heat were instantly transferred to the lower 10 km of the global atmosphere it would result in a volume mean warming of this atmospheric layer by approximately 36 C (65 F). This transfer of course will not happen; earth’s climate system simply does not work like this. But this computation does provide a perspective on the amount of heating that the earth system has undergone since 1955.
(http://www.agu.org.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/pubs/crossref/2012/2012GL051106.shtml)
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 1, 2012 at 7:46 am
Geoff Sharp says:
October 1, 2012 at 7:18 am
Nevanlinna said your original IHV data was erroneous as I am sure you are aware.
———————–
Here is what Nevanlinna (2004) said:
“1: Note, however, the criticism introduced by Svalgaard et al. (2003) concerning the secular trend of the aa-series in the 20th century, that have been claimed to be erroneous.”
He notes that I claim that the trend in aa is erroneous
“2: Thanks are given to L. Svalgaard and R. Pirjola for their valuable comments on the manuscript.”
Nothing about IHV being erroneous.
Next false statement, please.
The senile grandpa statements keep coming. Nevanlinna has always been in complete opposition to your erroneous IHV construction. Every Nevanlinna paper based on the Helsinki geomagnetic record shows a centennial increase opposing your flat floor illusion. Your sophist behavior has no end it seems.
Correction to a couple of typos in my previous comment,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1096946
1. The statement
Let’s look at the trend analysis for the two decades from 1991 to 2010.
should be instead
Let’s look at the trend analysis for the two decades from 1981 to 2000.
2. The statement
Enter start year 1980 and end year 2000.
should be instead
Enter start year 1981 and end year 2000.
The values of the 20-year trends in the comment are from the correct time period.
Geoff Sharp says:
October 1, 2012 at 8:39 am
“Nothing about IHV being erroneous.
The senile grandpa statements keep coming. Nevanlinna has always been in complete opposition to your erroneous IHV construction.
You have not demonstrated the truth of your statement that Nevanlinna forced me to “adjust your own derived method of measurement because it was found erroneous by your peers”.
Nevanlinna’s papers suffer from the same problem as aa, because he appends his data to the low end of aa. What matters is the acceptance of IHV/IDV of the geomagnetic community. Here is an excerpt from a recent IAGA publication endorsing our work http://www.leif.org/research/IHV-IDV-Indices-IAGA.png
So, now that we have disposed of your false claim about Nevanlinna, you can go on the your next false claim, please.
I note that you are stooping to the same level as Bart. Very telling, don’t you think?
Moderators.
My reply to JPP has gone in the ‘bin’.
Please find it and post it.
Richard
Oh, I just see, the last link in my comment,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-svalgaard-on-the-new-scientist-solar-max-story/#comment-1096946
leads only to a login page of CU:
Here is the correct link:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2012GL051106
Sorry about that.
JanP;
We have estimated an increase of 24×10^22 J representing a volume mean warming of 0.09 C of the 0–2000 m layer of the World Ocean. If this heat were instantly transferred to the lower 10 km of the global atmosphere it would result in a volume mean warming of this atmospheric layer by approximately 36 C
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well, if it was transferred to the top 1 km, we’d get warming of hundrfeds of degrees. Why not posit a xfer to the top 1 cm which wouls result in a few thousands of degrees?
This is precisely the sort of rant that does the most to discredit you and your colleagues JanP. The statement is technicaly accurate. But since no physical process exists in the real world that would result in this, why bring it up? It has value as a scare tactic because it sounds like a big number, but it has no value whatsoever as part of a scientific discussion.
As for the rest of your rant, I’ll leave it to richardscourtney to deconstruct it, but in brief, you said what you said, and richard proved you wrong. Now you’re trying to change what you said to what you meant, while claiming that you want to talk science not rehtoric. If so, just drop the rhetoric! It is that simple. By trying to assert that you said something different than what you did say, you just dig the hole deeper.
You still haven’t answered my previous questions by the way.
1. If you dismiss the CET as being regional, you must also dismiss Keith Briffa’s tree ring study which is based on a few trees from Siberia. Yes or no?
2. As you first claimed that IPCC AR4 WG1 was a good representation of your views on the science, but you now claim not in all cases, what is your position on WG1 Chapter 2, Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing, which clearly states that of 14 factors Level of Scientific Understanding is “Low” or “Very Low” for 9 of them, and only a single one is well understood. Do you agree with them on this? Yes or no?
3. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the various models in the IPCC ensemble use similar forcing values for all factors except aerosol forcing. For aerosol forcing, the values used diverge wildly from model to model, but the end result is that the model outputs converge. This demonstrates that aerosol forcing is not being estimated by the scientists or the data, but is being used as a fudge factor to bring the model results into closer agreement with one another. Yes or No?
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 1, 2012 at 5:48 am
“Put up or shut up.”
I.e., you lack the skill to do it yourself. Not my problem.
vukcevic says:
October 1, 2012 at 1:58 am
Yep.
Jan P Perlwitz says:
The graphic illustrates the dishonest approach by “skeptics” ….
No. That is a lie. That graphic does it depict anything “by skeptics” . That graphic was created by CAGW alarmist John Cook, for his political hack blog. It illustrates an alarmist’s charicature of sceptics, for use as a strawman argument – as you are doing here. It is no different than his buddy Lewandowsky’s attempt to pass off alarmists faked poll responses as the belief of sceptics. Why do you people have such difficulty dealing with the actual sceptic positions laid at your feet? Why must you lie?
… supported by you …
Another lie. I do not support anyone in their use of Cook’s method of time series analysis. On the other hand, you support Cook’s use of that lie, by making it your own.
Here we have a highly placed NASA scientist, parroting politicized strawman talking points from a cartoonist. And you people wonder why no one places any value on your pronouncements. To the extent that you have to be trusted, you demonstrate that you are not worthy of it.
What is your scientific reasoning that 15 years of a “flat” temperature trend make all the difference compared to the examples in the animation?
The primary difference is length of period and prevalence. There are other important differences, of course. Cook went well overboard in his use of overlapping periods, and failing to account for the trend in the centers of the individual trends, and in using land temp data under the title ‘global’, etc. But the fundamental differences are the fact that the period is longer, and includes the present.
Returning to previous discussion: IF ‘global warming’ is truly a scientific proposition and not merely the object of a religious/political faith commitment, THEN there exists SOME period over which a lack of warming would be held to falsify a robustly stated hypothesis test of the ‘global warming’ conjecture. As previously discussed, one estimate of such a criterion suggests that a time period of 17 years may be suffiicent. Given that we are currently at ~16 years of flat temps per two surface temp datasets (one thermometer, one satellite) the relevance is obvious.
Speaking of obvious, the question that you have not addressed: Given that you clearly hold your own conceptualization of ‘global warming’ to be a scientific proposition, what are your falsification criteria for temps?
How long can global average surface temps remain flat before you admit your theory is bust?
How long would they have to rise at less than the 0.2C/decade rate predicted by the low end of your scenarios before you will accept that you are wrong?
How much can they drop, before you will come to that conclusion?
Please be specific.
Bart says:
October 1, 2012 at 10:40 am
I.e., you lack the skill to do it yourself. Not my problem.
Because there is no obvious error, as simple as that.
E.M. Smith says:
“You know, if Perlwitz spent even 1/4 the time on actually thinking about the problems raised by others and having actual responses to the points, folks would learn a lot more (one way or the other). As it is, reminds me more of kindergarten food fight tactics.”
I note that Perlwitz cannot refute my falsification of the CO2=CAGW conjecture, and also that he will not answer JJ’s question, or davidhoffer’s questions. He is merely a rent-seeking propagandist for the anti-science crowd. The fact that he can blog and post comments throughout the work day shows how thoroughly corrupt GISS has become under James Hansen.
From Leif Svalgaard on October 1, 2012 at 5:48 am:
“Small” being a relative term, with amplitudes greater than California is long.
There can be a pattern without there being an oscillator.
There’s one thing that strikes me about this discussion. Given the mass of the Sun, the viscous composition, the turbulence and the inherent chaotic nature that arises, I do not see how the conditions for long-standing oscillations could be established. Indeed, given the scales involved including time, it’s like people are trying to decipher the behavior of an ocean by looking for patterns to the ripples at the water’s edge. And the effects of the motions of all the planets together are infinitesimal compared to the effect of the Moon on the Earth, thus a lot of noise from which they are trying to pull a signal.
How could the Sun possibly be an oscillator as they are discussing? Perhaps assume it has an iron core that “rings” at certain frequencies?
Re: CET ONLY A REGIONAL DATASET
Davidmhoffer
If you dismiss the CET as being regional…..
True, the CET is a regional data set, but region is large enough that it captures all major trend changes for period 1880-2010 of the:
-Northern Hemisphere temperature with correlation factor R^2 = 0.737
-Global temperature with correlation factor R^2 = 0.712
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CGNh.htm
Only difference is that volatility in the CET signal is far greater (fewer samples averaged).
Dr. Perlwitz either knows this, or if not then Dr. Perlwitz should know it !
I have no intention of getting involved in ‘slogging match’ with someone who either is not aware of basics or if so, purposefully contradicts what is integral to the data.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 1, 2012 at 11:22 am
“Because there is no obvious error, as simple as that.”
To you. Hardly an authoritative statement on this specific subject matter. But, thanks for making things easy for me. I don’t really want to help you out, and I’m just as happy that you willfully do not reap the benefit of my knowledge and experience.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 1, 2012 at 12:05 pm
These are oscillations. They are created by a process which can thereby be referred to as an “oscillator”. They are quite regular, and that makes them predictable, if one knows how to do it.
From Bart on October 1, 2012 at 12:49 pm:
I have a pot of thick soup on the stove. The heat is not high enough for continuous boiling. Instead, every now and then the bubbles below near the heat will grow and gather and finally “bloop” to the surface. There appears to be a pattern, the timing of the bloops is roughly regular and predictable.
I can read about the solar cycles, deduced from sunspot counts. While the average period is about 10.66 years, there is considerable variation, running from 9 to 14 years. From 1784 to 1799 was actually a double cycle, with one of the two having to have been shorter than 8 years.
My pot of soup is not an oscillator, and its “pattern” better matches that of the solar cycles than it does what I would expect from an oscillator. Therefore I conclude the Sun is not an oscillator.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 1, 2012 at 12:05 pm
Given the mass of the Sun, the viscous composition, the turbulence and the inherent chaotic nature that arises, I do not see how the conditions for long-standing oscillations could be established.
An oscillator must have a driving force and [importantly] a restoring force. The sun has neither and is not an oscillator on the scale of solar cycles.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
October 1, 2012 at 1:50 pm
An oscillator is “that which oscillates.” The only question is how well and repeatably it does so.
The oscillations of the SSN have very regular and repeatable structure, with some stochastic or chaotic variation. That makes them predictable with calculable error bounds. Take a look at Vukcevic’s plots. He’s more than halfway to the goal line.
Mr Perlwitz:
I am writing a response to your silly diatribe at October 1, 2012 at 8:07 am addressed as a supposed rebuttal of my response to your lies which I posted at October 1, 2012 at 2:01 am.
The facts are clear: you lied, repeatedly. Anybody can see that.
Your excuses are patently false; e.g.
at September 29, 2012 at 5:15 pm you wrote saying to davidmhoffer
you now write
Oh! So your “views” are what the IPCC says but only when it suites you! And fundamental statements about the science by the IPCC are “details” which you don’t accept when they show you have lied!
And you say
I gave you “scientific arguments”; i.e. the “committed warming” predicted by the IPCC for the two decades after 2000 has disappeared. The IPCC says nothing about “committed warming” for earlier periods.
The “committed warming” derives directly from the “science” as stated by the IPCC. The fact that it has not happened and shows no signs of happening is a direct indication of the validity of that “science”. And the “committed warming” has to exist if your assertions about future warming are true.
The rest of your post is similar. Indeed, it purports to be a defence against your exposure as a liar but adds more lies; for example, this
That is another blatant lie.
I wrote
“Probably a physical impossibility” is NOT “can’t happen … for reasons of physics”.
I quote one piece of your ignorant and stupid twaddle to demonstrate why I am not bothering to give further assistance to your intellectual masturbation. You say
You – not me – said the IPCC represented your views. I accepted that and addressed a fundamental statement about the “science”. So, if your accusation of “a childish response” is true then it applies to you and not me. (I think the IPCC presents biased and distorted representations of the science.)
Richard