From the Georgia Institute of Technology
‘Stadium waves’ could explain lull in global warming
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
@ur momisugly richardscourtney (October 12, 2013 at 10:41 am)
All you’re doing is clarifying your functional innumeracy. Stop addressing me.
Thanks Paul
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.
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
One more pretend to be “science” paper. Once again building castles out of thin air.
No one knows. It is a too complex system.
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?
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
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.
http://m.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814.fullh3814.full
This paper finds longer term cyclical tidal links that explain things on millennial scales.
Paul Vaughan says:
October 11, 2013 at 11:48 pm
@ur momisugly 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.
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
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
phlogiston says:
October 12, 2013 at 1:25 pm
Paul Vaughan says:
October 11, 2013 at 11:48 pm
@ur momisugly 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.
@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
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:
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.)
Paul Vaughan.I had remembered seeing this here before and I was intrigued.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/vaughn-sun-earth-moon-harmonies-beats-biases.pdf
I see the word natural is more accurate than internal.
Could you clarify a bit what you are understanding in the linked pdf above?
@ur momisugly Salvatore Del Prete
October 10, 2013 at 1:00 pm
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
So one must pay attention to the Antarctic when looking at Arctic Ice loss…
Elsewhere in that article I quote another paper:
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.
@ur momisugly 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.
@ur momisugly E.M.Smith
Lunisolar at most scrambles interannually & inter-regionally. MD NH attractor is solar.
– –
@ur momisugly 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.)
– –
@ur momisugly 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.
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.
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
@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:
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814/F2.large.jpg
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” 😉
“Inflection” works. But think of the pixels needed to explain it for everyone…
☹
@ur momisugly Paul Vaughan:
October 12, 2013 at 3:26 pm (Edit)
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’d suggest that calling someone “innumerate morons” is not the way to “civil discussion”. Think about it…
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.
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)
@ur momisugly 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.
– –
@ur momisugly 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.