Guest essay by Johannes Herbst
There is a much discussed graph in the blogosphere from ‘Tamino’ (Grant Foster), which aims to prove that there is no delay or pause or decline in global warming.
He states: Twelve of sixteen were hotter than expected even according to the still-warming prediction, and all sixteen were above the no-warming prediction:
Let’s get a larger picture:
- We see the red HADCRUT4 graph, coming downwards a bit from 1960 to 1975, and inclining steeper beyond 2000, with a slight drop of about the last 10 years.
- We see a blue trend, rising at the alarming rate of 0.4°C within only one decade! This was the time when some scientists started to worry about global warming.
- We see the green trend, used by the blogger Tamino in the first graphic, rising less than 0.1°C per decade.
- Below we see the Sunspot Numbers, pulsing in a frequency of about 11 years. Comparing it with the red temperature graph, we see the same pattern of 11 years pulsing. It shows clear evidence that temperature is linked to the sunspot activity.
Tamino started his trend at high sun activity and it stopped at low activity. Therefore the weak increase during 18 years.
Which leads us to the question: How long should a time be for observing climate change? If we look at the sunspot activity and the clear pattern it produces in the temperature graph, the answer is: 11 years or a multiple of it.
Or we can measure from any point of:
·high sun activity to one of the following
·low sun activity to one of the following
·rising sun activity to one of the following
·declining sun activity to one of the following
to eliminate the pattern of sunspot numbers.
Let’s try it out:
The last point of observation of the trend is between 2003 and 2014, about 2008. But even here we can see the trend has changed.
We do not know about the future. An downward trend seems possible, but a sharp rise is predicted from some others, which would destroy our musings so far.
Just being curious: How would the graph look with satellite data? Let’s check RSS.
Really interesting. The top of both graph appears to be at 2003 or 2004. HADCRUT4 shows a 0.05°C decline, RSS a 0.1°C per decade.
A simple way for smoothing a curve
There is a more simple way for averaging patterns (like the influence of sunspots). I added a 132 months average (11 years). This means at every spot of the graph all neighboring data (5.5 years to the left and 5.5 years to the right) are averaged. This also means that the graph will stop 5.5 years from the beginning or the end. And voila, the curve is the same as with our method in the previous post to measure at the same slope of a pattern.
As I said before the top of the curve is about 2003, and our last point of observation of a 11 years pattern is 2008. From 2008 to 2003 is only 5 years. This downtrend, even averaged, is somehow too short for a long time forecast. But anyway, the sharp acceleration of the the 1975-2000 period has stopped and the warming even halted – for the moment.
Note: I gave the running average graph (pale lilac) an offset of 0.2°C to get it out of the mess of all the trend lines.
If Tamino would have smoothed the 11years sun influence of the temperature graph before plotting the trend like done here at WFT, his green trend would be would be the same incline like the blue 33 year trend:
Even smoother
Having learned how to double and triple smooth a curve, I tried it as well on this graph:
We learned from Judith Curry’s Blog that on the top of a single smoothed curve a trough appears. So the dent at 2004 seems to be the center of the 132 month’s smoothed wave. I double smoothed the curve and reached 2004 as well, now eliminating the dent.
Note: Each smoothing cuts away the end of the graph by half of the smoothing span. So with every smoothing the curve gets shorter. But even the not visible data are already included in the visible curve.
According to the data, after removing all the “noise” (especially the 11 year’s sun activity cycle) 2004 was the very top of the 60 years sine wave and we are progressing downwards now for 10 years.
If you are not aware about the 60 years cycle, I just have used HADCRUT4 and smoothed the 11 years sunspot activity, which influences the temperature in a significant way.
We can clearly see the tops and bottoms of the wave at about 1880, 1910, 1940, 1970, and 2000. If this pattern repeats, the we will have 20 more years going down – more or less steep. About ten years of the 30 year down slope are already gone.
One more pattern
There is also a double bump visible at the downward slopes of about 10/10 years up and down. By looking closer you will see a hunch of it even at the upward slope. If we are now at the beginning of the downward slope – which could last 30 years – we could experience these bumps as well.
Going back further
Unfortunately we have no global temperature records before 1850. But we have one from a single station in Germany. The Hohenpeissenberg in Bavaria, not influenced from ocean winds or towns.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Temperaturreihe_Hoher_Pei%C3%9Fenberg.PNG
Sure, it’s only one single station, but the measurements were continuously with no pause, and we can get somehow an idea by looking at the whole picture. Not in terms of 100% perfection, but just seeing the trends. The global climate surely had it’s influence here as well.
What we see is a short upward trend of about ten years, a downward slope of 100 years of about 1°C, an upward trend for another 100 years, and about 10 years going slightly down. Looks like an about 200 years wave. We can’t see far at both sides of the curve, but if this Pattern is repeating, this would only mean: We are now on the downward slope. Possibly for the next hundred years, if there is nothing additional at work.
The article of Greg Goodman about mean smoothers can be read here:
Data corruption by running mean ‘smoothers’
==================================
Johannes Herbst writes at: http://klimawandler.blogspot.de/
So by smoothing a lot you get a tell-signal of a double-bump that indicates a change in trend. From which you conclude we could be in for 100 years of cooling.
It sounds possible but then, so does Tamino.
Surely, it is fairer to say that over the last 17 years there has been no significant temperature trend and, as we don’t know why, anything can happen now. Isn’t that more easily justified?
Nice graphs. With a Dalton type solar minima surely ahead, things are going to increasingly get interesting.
Looking at Tamino’s graph, you see a nice 1.2C/century trend.
Why are we panicing?
Nice! Tamino is smart, but not very wise, a very annoying combination. His idea requires that the global temperature is just random noise around a linear trend. There are good reasons to believe that his idea is overly simple. One way to look at it is presented in this article, but I’d also like to point to Bob Tisdale’s idea that global SST increases in steps after El Niños, i.e. that the released heat is retained in the earth system for quite a while.
Am I missing something, or did Tamino use 1997 instead of 1998 as his breakpoint? That seems a more pertinent form of cherry-picking than anything else.
Johannes says:
I’m sorry, Johannes, but your eyes are fooling you badly. The correlation between HadCRUT and sunspots is a pathetic 0.014, with a p-value of 0.54.
In other words, the data you cite clearly shows that there is no correlation between the HadCRUT4 dataset and the sunspot dataset.
Which is no surprise, as many, many people have looked at the sunspots vs HadCRUT4 correlation and found nothing …
So while Tamino may indeed be very wrong … I fear you are as well.
w.
“Which leads us to the question: How long should a time be for observing climate change?”
====================
Just my opinion, but when the Vikings’ descendants re-establish the farms of the MWP on Greenland, I’d say the climate has changed.
What is so magical about 30, 60, 90 or one hundred years? Time shouldn’t matter. Climate change should be pronounced when the climate is observed to change.
(But let’s not lose sight of the original issue of CO2 based CAGW, which has morphed into ‘climate change.’)
Try these for a CRTM (c.f. Greg Goodman) 15 year treatment of HadCrut and GISS data.
HadCrut
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/HadCrut4Monthly11575Lowpass1575SGExtensions_zps48569a45.gif
GISS
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/GISS11575LowpassSG15_zps3d9a93bb.gif
Because of the shortness of the data it is not possible to do a full 15 year pass on the satellite data but a 7.5 year version shows these displays
UAH
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/UAH175LowPass_zps3af20c1b.gif
RSS
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/RSS175Lowpass_zps940b1944.gif
I always use continuous functions, such as Cascaded Triple Running Means and Savitzky-Golay projections rather than Linear Trends as I regard LTs as being
“Linear Trend” = “Tangent to the curve” = “Flat Earth” thinking 🙂
Johannes Herbst:
Thankyou for your article. However, it seems to provide more shade than light.
The first sentence in your article says
So,
The issue is whether or not the above graph from the egregious Grant Foster is correct and, if so, what it indicates.
The graph is not correct because the only thing it indicates is that Foster has selected a timescale which supports an agenda. End of.
Your article introduces examination of the timescale selected by Foster with its first three bullet points. And it would have been helpful if you had expanded on those.
But your fourth bullet point introduces a suggestion that global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA) relates to solar cycles. And the remainder of your article expands on that. If you had wanted to discuss the degree to which GASTA relates to solar cycles then it would have been helpful if you had written another article which specifically addressed that.
On the basis of WUWT history it can be confidently predicted that this thread will be dominated by proponents of solar influence on climate promoting their case. This is a pity because Foster’s propaganda merits full exposure for being the misleading pseudoscience which it is.
Richard
Tamino’s favourite LOWESS ‘smooth’ is the same as using Savitzky-Golay except that LOWESS is OLS ‘fit’ to short straight lines and Savitzky-Golay is an OLS ‘fit’ to a function (I use 2nd order in the work I have published).
I am banned for posting at Tamino’s because I have a habit of pointing out ‘Emperors New Clothes’ when I see them and he has a hissy fit when I do.
richardscourtney says:
February 7, 2014 at 2:33 am
“This is a pity because Foster’s propaganda merits full exposure for being the misleading pseudoscience which it is.”
I agree. My post in response to this and Tamino is stuck in moderation because it has 4 urls in it so time will….
P.S. I could split my posts into sub-sections to get round the 3 url limit but that is not playing the game fairly with Anthony.
richardscourtney says:
February 7, 2014 at 2:33 am
Reply on its way but now two comments are stuck in moderation – ah well, less Tigger, more Owl.
Is that Tamino character serious with his childish attempt at the three card trick? Temperature jumps around every 2 to 3 years and even a 3 year average flattens outmost of the noise. Plot that and you can see what is happening. High school statistics and line fitting a la spreadsheet is just laughable.
M Seward says:
February 7, 2014 at 2:51 am
“High school statistics and line fitting a la spreadsheet is just laughable.”
My take?
“Linear Trend” = “Tangent to the curve” = “Flat Earth” thinking 🙂
“I am banned for posting at Tamino’s because I have a habit of pointing out ‘Emperors New Clothes’ when I see them and he has a hissy fit when I do.”
LOL. Grant “Tamino” Foster is so full of himself that he cannot abide anyone contradict or question what he says. That is why he hides behind the safely of own little universe where he has editorial control.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/open-mind-or-cowardly-bigot/
It went up, it stayed up.It has not got statistically warmer for some time, but the patients temperature is still high and the fact that it has not risen any further is neither here nor there. Our planet is still pyrexial. With patients we prescribe anti-pyrexials such as Asprin or Paracetamol. Is there a prescription for the planet, or is everyone happy to see it stay heated? If so, the conveyor belt of storms experienced since last year in the UK will have to be accepted as quite normal as well as other climatic changes yet to be seen.
Following up on my previous comment, I’ve confirmed Tamino did use 1997, not 1998, as his breakpoint. I have no explanation for that. What I do have is a quick blog post I wrote examining the issue:
hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/02/07/cherry-picking-done-stupidly/
I think there’s more wrong with Tamino’s post than I pointed out, but I’d rather focus on one issue at a time. Primarily, if Tamino wants to test whether or not there has been warming since 1998, he shouldn’t create a test (bad or otherwise) which looks to see if there has been warming since 1997.
Gareth Phillips says at February 7, 2014 at 3:12 am…
But is this fever harmful? Surely it helps growing cycles? And fewer tropical storms are expected as the temperature differential between poles and equator declines?
Ah, but you then say:
So it is superstition then.
Last year was dry and cold (then quite hot in a bit called Summer) in the UK. “Other climatic changes” seem to be everything that happens.
If everything is consistent with AGW then AGW has no explanatory power. We can do without that hypothesis.
Johannes, glad you found my post on running means and proper choice of filters useful. The 132/99/74 month filter you use makes a good job of removing higher frequencies and leaves a nice clean curve of the longer term variation.
I would have to agree with Willis’ comment that the SSN does not hold up in a simple regression analysis. This was discussed recently and I shows there was a circe 9.1 year cycle that breaks the simple correlation. This is the trouble with trivial analysis like Foster does.
There are many interfering patterns in climate, it is a very complex system. Just doing one linear regression of correlation test is not sufficient to prove or disprove the influence of a single factor unless it overwhelms all others.
Almost all data will have a linear “trend”, so if one avoids any serious analysis of the variability and just the give up by hiding behind a fancy word like “stochastic” the obvious conclusion is “linear trend plus stochastic variability”.
That does not prove anything except one’s lack of ability.
Gareth Phillips:
Your post at February 7, 2014 at 3:12 am says in total
emphasis added: RSC
I understand your advertisement for Vi@gra, but I fail to understand the relevance of “the conveyor belt of storms experienced since last year in the UK”. Such storms are normal and they occur whenever the jet stream comes South. But what has that to do with your use of Vi@gra which you describe?
Also, I can understand how warm weather increases your desire to use Vi@gra, but how is our pleasantly warm planet “pyrexial”?
Richard
I am confident that Solar activity dictates global temperatures overall. Even the warmists at the IPCC seem to have claimed that in the distant past but not of course today. I am sure we will maybe one day soon discover how, which I recall a couple of years ago was promoted unacknowledged at a Climate conference in Germany. GCRs plus magnetic field, etc, if memory serves. The Sun does possess 99.9% of the mass of the Solar System, the thought that it has no affect of our planet seems to me ridiculous, even though we as yet do not know how. Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence!!! In the past studies have suggested that Solar Activity affects the planet in many ways, & I repeat that I watched a BBC Horizon programme (show) years ago that demonstrated various trends in Human activity corresponding to Solar Activity, but that was when the BBC did science, not voodoo scare stories. We know for instance that it can affect power grids, satellites, communications, etc. The idea that it doesn’t affect Climate seems illogical at best, especially when not so long ago the UK Wet Office acknowledged that it affected weather, but NOT Climate, of course! That too seems ridiculous considering that Climate is made up of weather patterns over a prolonged period of time! I am fairly sure that Solar magnetic activity affects the Earth’s magnetic field & that there is likely some link there with Climate. I have issues with both the Wet Office & the IPCC when they try to pass off the pause in warming by claiming it to be the result of volcanic activity & reduced Solar activity, when they have clearly stated the Sun doesn’t have a significant affect on Climate. They cannot have it both ways! IMHO.
A word of caution on Hoeherpissenberg ( german for pissing high mountain 😉 ) , all those HISTALP stations get two warming long term adjustments of about 0.5 K each . Non “homogenised” data is NOT available neither is the adjustment method verifiable.
I’m not saying it’s wrong but it’s yet more data where the long term variability is determined more by the adjustments that are applied, than what the data actually indicated before going through the blender.
Greg Goodman says:
February 7, 2014 at 3:28 am
“Johannes, glad you found my post on running means and proper choice of filters useful. The 132/99/74 month filter you use makes a good job of removing higher frequencies and leaves a nice clean curve of the longer term variation.”
Greg: I have settled on a 15 year ‘corner’ with 180, 149 and 123 as being the parameters to choose.
The particular reason for choosing that roll off point is that it is 1 octave below the 30 years that is considered to be ‘Climate’.
That it then shows a definite ~60 year period in the data is down purely to what the data says is there, not any preconceptions as to what to look for.
P.S. I try to give appropriate reference back to both you and V. Pratt for the 1.2067 inter stage multiplier I now use.
Try these for a CTRM (c.f. Greg Goodman) 15 year treatment of HadCrut and GISS data.
HadCrut
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/HadCrut4Monthly11575Lowpass1575SGExtensions_zps48569a45.gif
GISS
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/GISS11575LowpassSG15_zps3d9a93bb.gif
Gareth Phillips says: February 7, 2014 at 3:12 am
When a patient has recovered from hypothermia, I don’t think it is normal for doctors to prescribe anything to try an get the temperature down again.
So this analogy only really works if you can define the normal temperature of our planet. Can you?
M Courtney says:
February 7, 2014 at 1:14 am
“Surely, it is fairer to say that over the last 17 years there has been no significant temperature trend and, as we don’t know why, anything can happen now. Isn’t that more easily justified?”
To make a prediction you have to have a model. The IPCC has the GCM’s and they all failed. “need some work”; i.e. need a refurbishment, and at the moment, have a batting score of zero.
Mörner, Scafetta et al have their model, which has been roundly lambasted by this website, but it’s a model, and they have their prediction. One could call it a new model or one could call it a rehash of Landscheidt in which case its score is perfect for the time being. Hope the word Landscheidt doesn’t send this comment to Gehenna.
Then there is the Null hypothesis: Climate is brown noise. So it will keep its spectral composition and perform a random walk according to it. This hypothesis ignores CO2 as well as solar influences. Very unlikely in my opinion. I expect the sun to have an influence.
here is the adjustment applied to the HISTALP series.
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=102t6ia&s=8#.UvTJ_aJg8rQ
Inter-decadal variation does not seem much affected but there is a significant century scale warming added to the records.
What is clear is that the hard core CO2 obsessed are not going to let go of their climate apocalypse. The idea that after a peak you have levels near the peak is lost on the true believers. Even the IPCC is backing off the extreme position on climate sensitivity. But the Tamino’s of the world are having none of that.
As for the Gareth Phillips position that the temperature of the world has gone up significantly and for a long time, please learn some history. And perhaps consider getting some counseling on how to deal with such dangerous hubris.
RichardLH says:
February 7, 2014 at 3:44 am
Thanks for the plots. Interesting that the S-G 75y filter produces a kink in 1940 and almost linear each side.
It’s hard to know what conclusions to draw from such a filter since its frequency response changes _as a function of the data_ . Same for LOWESS.
This is typical econometrics stuff. They just do something, anything, and if it “looks” OK they use it. I can’t imagine a filter without a definable frequency response being taken seriously in engineering or a hard science.
Greg Goodman says:
February 7, 2014 at 4:06 am
“Thanks for the plots. Interesting that the S-G 75y filter produces a kink in 1940 and almost linear each side.
It’s hard to know what conclusions to draw from such a filter since its frequency response changes _as a function of the data_ . Same for LOWESS.”
I am very cautious about any of the OLS ‘fits’ to the data, both LOWESS and S-G. At least S-G is a ‘fit’ to a function, not a line.
The advantage of using a full kernel CTRM as a training fir for the alignment then becomes obvious. You can ‘prove’ that the choice of parameters is good for the overlap period at least and thus is likely to be good for the ‘extension’ as well. Reduces the likelihood of ‘cherry picking’ the ‘fit’.
The 75 year (being only a single mean because of data length) and the S-G of the same are at the very edge of what is possible. The S-G will ‘whip’ around with new data and may well soon ‘flip’ to a downward trend into the future. The guidance for this is that the ‘zero crossing’ point is happening too early for the longer curve still to be rising as estimated currently. Just a few more years of data may well show that to be true :-).
Tamino proves with a linear line that global warming has not stopped. It proceeds in a linear fashion at a 0.1 degree clip every decade. 86 more year left in the 21st Century so it will be 0.86 degrees warmer in 2100 than it is in present day. Let’s spend trillions to stop that scary 0.86 degrees.
Jared:
You make a good point in your post at February 7, 2014 at 4:14 am
Yes.
If Foster were right that global warming is continuing as he suggests then global warming is not a problem.
I write to emphasise your point because it is so important.
Richard
Dirk H, I expect CO2 and the sun to have an influence… and a lot else beside.
Over the long term the climate seems very stable (well bi-stable cetween ice ages and not).
Over the short term we have weather – not stable.
And over the term of a century or so we have trends that go up and down seemingly at 30 year intervals, perhaps.
So I’m not willing to endorse any model at the moment. None seems to be able to br validated for at least half a century – excepting if the model mimics the past near perfectly without tuning on the past.
That exception seems to be an unproven statement about any climate model, yet.
steveta_uk says:
February 7, 2014 at 3:45 am
Gareth Phillips says: February 7, 2014 at 3:12 am
” Our planet is still pyrexial. With patients we prescribe anti-pyrexials such as Asprin or Paracetamol.”
When a patient has recovered from hypothermia, I don’t think it is normal for doctors to prescribe anything to try an get the temperature down again.
So this analogy only really works if you can define the normal temperature of our planet. Can you?
===========================================================================
My thoughts exactly.
Brandon, I think Tamino in the comments section after his article almost states that his graph is cherry picked to a 1997 date in the belief that this allows him to claim warming hasn’t paused. When a couple of commentators were allowed to half comment on this he dismissed them with the view that all’s fair in putting skeptics down.
As light relief a few of his regular commentators did not get the joke and were commentating on how wonderful and accurate his presentation was.
At least the comments section was civilised in comparison to the disgraceful mysogynism in the blog section made on Judith Curry in the second of his blogs attacking her view on the Antarctic sea ice which is almost worth a post on WUWT although it would probably be too dangerous legally.
Thank you Johannes for your submission and all for your thoughts – a difficult topic with no apparent easy resolution.
Johannes, for historic data you may want to examine CET’s as well as Hohenpeissenberg in Bavaria .
My thoughts below – more questions than answers:
Best to all, Allan
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/14/no-matter-if-its-a-climatic-pause-or-jolt-still-no-warming/#comment-1539945
I agree RichardLH – wait for more data.
All I can see is the gross correlation that has been historically observed between low Sunspots during two significant cold periods – the Maunder and the Dalton,
I expect the Sun is the dominant factor, however, the ~90 year Gleissberg Cycle is in-and-out-of-phase with the ~60 year PDO.
I do expect global cooling in the next few years as stated above.
How much cooling? Not sure but probably significant enough to cause hardship for humanity in Northern climes. Hope to be wrong. Getting old and hate the cold.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/14/no-matter-if-its-a-climatic-pause-or-jolt-still-no-warming/#comment-1539464
Hello again RichardLH,
Maybe you can find something of value in this data:
I have no Sunspot Number data before 1700, but the latter part of the Maunder Minimum had 2 back-to-back low Solar Cycles with SSNmax of 58 in 1705 and 63 in 1717 .
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-indices/sunspot-numbers/international/tables/
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/solar/image/annual.gif
The coldest period of the Maunder was ~1670 to ~1700 (8.48dC year average Central England Temperatures) but the coldest year was 1740 (6.84C year avg CET).
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/data/download.html
The Dalton Minimum had 2 back-to-back low SC’s with SSNmax of 48 in 1804 and 46 in 1816. Tambora erupted in 1815.
Two of the coldest years in the Dalton were 1814 (7.75C year avg CET) and 1816 (7.87C year avg CET).
Now Solar Cycle 24 is a dud with SSNmax estimated at ~65, and very early estimates suggest SC25 will be very low as well.
The warmest recent years for CET were 2002 to 2007 inclusive that averaged 10.55C.
So here is my real concern:
IF the Sun does indeed drive temperature, as I suspect, then global cooling probably WILL happen within the next decade or sooner.
Best regards, Allan
My favorite “cherry-pick” is: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1945/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1965/to:2000/trend
Two 35 year periods of warming trend and the larger one was the one that occurred when there was roughly 25% less CO2 in the air. (Thank God for those aerosols that instantly came along just when needed or we probably would have been burnt toast by 1980! /sarc)
But seriously, is the above considered “cherry-picking” or merely a statement of the obvious?
steveta_uk says: “define the normal temperature”
hunter says: “dangerous hubris.”
And defining “normal” versus “dangerous” hubris is at least as difficult to define as “normal” versus “dangerous” global temperature.
richardscourtney, you write to emphasize a point make at 4:14 am “because it is so important.”
I made the same point at 1:32 am. Sulk ;(
Gareth Phillips says on February 7, 2014 at 3:12 am
It went up, it stayed up. It has not got statistically warmer for some time, but the patients temperature is still high and the fact that it has not risen any further is neither here nor there. Our planet is still pyrexial.
pyrexial (paɪˈrɛksɪəl) or pyrexic
Definitions
adjective
(pathology, technical term) of or relating to a rise in the temperature of the body which is often a symptom of infection.
_____________
My comments:
The current global warmth is definitely NOT an “infection” Gareth. Humanity is now enjoying a benign and highly desirable Warm Period during which we do much better than cooler periods such as the Little Ice Age, and particularly the time of the Maunder and Dalton Minimums circa 1700 and 1800.
Rather than panicking over the alleged “global warming crisis”, we should be enjoying this brief warm respite and planning for a probable global cooling period that could be mild or severe. Cheap abundant energy is highly desirable – we have that for the moment in North America – but the rest of the world is not so fortunate. They should be exploiting cheap energy sources such as shale gas without further delay or obstruction. If they fail to do so, I suggest there will be a significant increase in excess winter mortality rates, which are already alarmingly high in some countries of Western Europe. Bundle up, good people!
Best to all, Allan
Love it when a stray climate zombie wanders in for rapid dispatching. One of the things that keeps me coming back.
H.R. says:
“Climate change should be pronounced when the climate is observed to change”
Absolutely! Using this common sense rule of thumb and historical data we can easily identify some of the most recent episodes of climate change:
• the Roman period (~250 BC – 400 AD), a warming trend
• the Medieval warm period (~950 – 1250 AD), a warming trend
• the Little Ice Age (~1350 – 1850 AD), a cooling trend
• the “Dust Bowl – dirty thirties”, a warming trend
• the period from ~1940 – ~1978, a cooling trend
• the period from ~1978 – ~1997, a warming trend
• the period from ~1997 – present, a flat line
And the lesson here is that CO2 has very little to do with climate change.
steveta_uk:
At February 7, 2014 at 4:42 am you say to me
Yes, indeed you did.
I apologise that I then missed it. And I thank you for pointing out that I did.
But the fact that I missed it adds emphasis to the need for the important point made by you and Jared to be iterated. So, I again repeat it.
If Foster were right that global warming is continuing as he suggests then global warming is not a problem.
Richard
Greg Goodman:
The reason for how I came to try and use a Savitzky-Golay ‘fit’ as an extension to the CTRM (which I much prefer as an invariant summary of the data to date) can be found on the Nature ‘Missing Heat’ thread where Nate Drake PhD had another hissy fit very similar to those that Tamino throws when I used the 15 year CTRM to demonstrate a ~60 year cycle to the data.
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525
Nate is fully confinced that Means, Running, Cascaded or otherwise are NOT, VERY DEFINITELY NOT, FIR filters of any form or practice what so ever! A lovely ‘anti-science’ position to be in.
How far out on a limb can one get before sawing it off behind yourself?
He’s been strangely quite since then. I would pop over to the Bunny Hutch and try and find him but I am not very welcome there either for some reason. Something to do with facts and Antarctic Sea Ice.
Brandon Shollenberger says on February 7, 2014 at 3:18 am
“Following up on my previous comment, I’ve confirmed Tamino did use 1997, not 1998, as his breakpoint. I have no explanation for that.”
I think Tamino split the data into two equal halves. With data from 1980 – 2013 being 34 years, that puts the middle at 1997.
Other questions include:
-why choose 1980 as a starting point;
-why not repeat the same analysis with the data set 1998 – 2013;
-why not repeat the same analysis for other 34 year periods in the surface temperature record;
Allan M.R. MacRae says:
February 7, 2014 at 4:27 am
“I agree RichardLH – wait for more data.”
The impatience of the Internet Age 🙂
“Hello again RichardLH, Maybe you can find something of value in this data:”
I have looked at the solar data and cannot find, as yet, a reasonable correlation between the ~60 year cycle in the temperature data and the solar figures (or orbital as well).
There are Nicola Scafetta’s papers of course but I find that they lack a definitive mechanism to transfer Solar or Orbital into something that would provide a direct temperature modulator here on Earth. I wait for someone to show me a methodology that does.
Alright, I’ve decided I was right to think Tamino’s methodology is nonsensical. I just updated my post:
http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/02/07/cherry-picking-done-stupidly/
To show how arbitrary decisions about what data to use causes massively different results. To demonstrate, I created a graph as legitimate as Tamino’s with his own methodology. It’s bogus, but I challenge anyone to show it is inherently less valid than Tamino’s.
http://hiizuru.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/tamino_mock.png?w=600&h=267
It went up, it stayed up.It has not got statistically warmer for some time, but the patients temperature is still high and the fact that it has not risen any further is neither here nor there. Our planet is still pyrexial. With patients we prescribe anti-pyrexials such as Asprin or Paracetamol. Is there a prescription for the planet, or is everyone happy to see it stay heated? If so, the conveyor belt of storms experienced since last year in the UK will have to be accepted as quite normal as well as other climatic changes yet to be seen.
Dear Gareth,
The patient, as it were, fell through the ice and became seriously hypothermic, decending to the lowest temperature in 8 or 9 thousand years. Fortunately, it managed to drag itself out of the water and wrap itself in a blanket and warm up a bit. Sadly, night fell, and it got very chilled again although of course not as badly as when it fell through the ice. Fortunately the next day was sunny and the patient has been slowly warming up and at this point is almost at a normal temperature.
If you want to play the silly metaphor game, I’m there. But let’s start your metaphor fairly, just before the LIA (falling through the ice) and continuing it into the Dalton minimum (clearly visible on the one long term graph of temperature above, night falling while still damp with icewater). Since the Dalton minimum, the “patient” has been warming back up. To normal? To fevered? It is quite literally impossible to tell — what’s “normal”? We couldn’t predict the fall through the ice and cannot explain it today. We cannot predict or explain one single bit of the patient’s record. We look at the warming trend post the Dalton minimum and wring our hands and say “this is our fault” in spite of the fact that we really, truly, do not know this.
Now, a good physician takes the FULL history of the patient, do they not? Also, before they conclude that a patient has a fever, they have to figure out what temperature is normal. For humans that is comparatively easy, but you still don’t measure temperature with an oral thermometer right after they finish a glass of hot tea or cold beer, and you recognize that if they’ve been taking aspirin the reading won’t reflect what is really happening. For a planet? We haven’t a clue what is normal — and the models we’ve built to predict its “normal” evolution in time do not work.
rgb
Brandon Shollenberger says:
February 7, 2014 at 5:21 am
“Alright, I’ve decided I was right to think Tamino’s methodology is nonsensical. I just updated my post:
http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/02/07/cherry-picking-done-stupidly/”
Cross post from your thread.
Actually a very reasonable ‘cherry pick’ would be to take the average of the last ‘n’ years as the cut point. That way you get to draw the blue line right down the centre of the later years. I mean, how much fairer could you be than that 🙂
Gareth, you can move that little zero/normal line up and down to show anything you want…
The more you filter the more you trim the end of the time series.
The more you trim the end of the time series the less “hiatus” you have to predict future cooling.
Therefore, filtering reduces your ability to predict future temperature trends.
I like Monckton’s hiatus claim of 17 years, 5 months. As this grows so to will scepticism of AGW.
chris y, that’s not what he said he did, but that doesn’t mean a whole lot. As for your questions, he didn’t choose 1980 as a starting point. He choose 1979. The reason he gives is that’s when satellite data begins. That’s a strange reason though as only a couple data sets require satellite measurement. There is no particular reason to use 1979 as the starting point for the rest.
You’re definitely right to ask why he didn’t repeat the analysis for a different data set. Had he done tested a variety of periods, he’d have seen dramatic changes in his results. That would show his methodology is suspect.
Of course, the best question is why did he include 1998’s data in the section he tested for “no warming since 1998”? It’s an especially good question as he responded to a reader:
Read that a couple times. He told a reader he was examining “what would have happened after 1998,” but his post clearly states he was using the period after 1997. That means he’s even contradicting himself.
Willis Eschenbach says:
February 7, 2014 at 2:21 am
I’m sorry, Johannes, but your eyes are fooling you badly. The correlation between HadCRUT and sunspots is a pathetic 0.014, with a p-value of 0.54.
In other words, the data you cite clearly shows that there is no correlation between the HadCRUT4 dataset and the sunspot dataset.
Not to mention that the temperature now is almost a degree higher than a hundred years ago while solar activity now is the same as it was back then.
This today from GWPF – thank you Benny and all:
The media aren’t paying much attention, but in recent weeks Europe has decided to run, not walk, as fast as it can away from the economic menace of green energy. Brussels calls this new policy “flexibility.” Right. More like “never mind,” and here’s why: The new German economic minister, Sigmar Gabriel, says green energy mandates have become such an albatross around the neck of industry that they could lead to a “deindustrialization” of Germany. What’s amazing about this story is that so few American politicians get it. President Obama talked in his State of the Union speech about doubling renewable energy output over the coming years. Mr. President, these are exactly the goals the Europeans are abandoning. Why chase the losers?
–Investor’s Business Daily, 5 February 2014
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/020514-689033-europe-finds-anti-co2-policies-are-destroying-the-economy.htm
lsvalgaard says:
February 7, 2014 at 5:38 am
“Not to mention that the temperature now is almost a degree higher than a hundred years ago while solar activity now is the same as it was back then.”
This is an incredibly unscientific statement. I expect better from you, Dr. Svalgaard. Your agenda is showing.
David Ball says:
February 7, 2014 at 6:45 am
“Not to mention that the temperature now is almost a degree higher than a hundred years ago while solar activity now is the same as it was back then.”
This is an incredibly unscientific statement. I expect better from you, Dr. Svalgaard. Your agenda is showing.
However the statement is true, regardless of what you call it. What can be better than the naked truth?
lsvalgaard says:
February 7, 2014 at 6:49 am
“However the statement is true, regardless of what you call it. What can be better than the naked truth?”
How about the naked truth that the temperature today is the same or possibly even lower than it has been in the past, presumably with roughly the same Solar input then as now?
RichardLH says:
February 7, 2014 at 6:53 am
How about the naked truth that the temperature today is the same or possibly even lower than it has been in the past, presumably with roughly the same Solar input then as now?
Look at figure 8 of this post and reconsider your question.
Eyeballing trends and data comparisons has been shown to be the most unreliable method of data analysis there is. I have to say it, posts presented at WUWT should have to pass at least a minimum standard related to statistics if statistics are being “**used”. In fact, to put it bluntly, this post most definitely “**used” statistics. Shame on the author.
lsvalgaard says:
February 7, 2014 at 6:56 am
“Look at figure 8 of this post and reconsider your question.”
Take a step further back to millennia rather than decade and reconsider MY question.
Pamela Gray says:
February 7, 2014 at 7:01 am
“In fact, to put it bluntly, this post most definitely “**used” statistics. Shame on the author.”
I would have said that, on balance, the misuse of statistics by all sides is pretty common. Very few use them correctly. Tamino misuses them, this post (using Tamino’s own methodology) misuses them.
I think that was rather the point of the article.
RichardLH says:
February 7, 2014 at 7:01 am
Take a step further back to millennia rather than decade and reconsider MY question.
Apart from the fact that neither solar activity nor global temperature are not well known millennia back, what little reliable data we have does not support your assertion, see slide 20 of http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf
The rate of change in any set of climate data is physically never linear. the data are composites of multiple cycles of varying wave lengths. The longer wave lengths may be approximated as linear with short time data sets, but those long term slopes have very little physical predictive ability. I find that by factoring out annual variations by calculating running two year slopes (monthly data such as three years of January data followed by three years of February data) you can observe a better signiture of climate change. Long term averaging washes out these signitures. The idea is to match these signitures of different data sets to determine the physical significance.
30 minutes after I get home my house is 5 degrees warmer than it was when a minute afterr I turned up the thermostat yet the furnace has not increaced its output.
I think LSvalgaard’s statement is true, but meaningless — and perhaps even open to ridicule, like the White House’s global warming chart? Yes, we seem to be in some kind of solar minimum (again), but what was the sun “doing” during the 100-year interim? Thank goodness the temperature is almost a degree higher than a hundred years ago (if the altered data are to be believed).
Thanks for all your responses. In summary the two main points that seem to be a theme are:
A) The increase in temperature we have experienced during the 20th century is nothing unusual and is quite normal, and,
B) the rain and storms suffered by the people of the UK are also nothing unusual.
It would be interesting to see your assessments of patients with various pathological conditions. I wonder if the opinions would be, ‘don’t worry, this used to be really common in the Middle ages or this is not really a problem, it’s just the body acting in a different way, and may even be beneficial’. While these things are not really the same thing, I’m using the human body as a metaphor,and homeostasis is an issue with both, and in each if that suddenly and rapidly changes leading to negative symptomology, they are both causes for concern. We can of course ignore them, but we can also admit that there is something going on and we can work to meet the challenge or even modify the downside of any impacts.
Willis Eschenbach says:
February 7, 2014 at 2:21 am
Just wondering. If a phenomenon only had effect on an outcome at certain threshold values, high spot count or low spot count and the outcome could vary randomly in between, would correlation coefficient and p-value really give any information?
Dr Svalgaard,
it started drizzling a little yesterday. Only lasted a short time and the grass in my garden dried off after an hour.
Today, it started to rain heavily and the grass was soaked through. Eventually, the heavy rain turned back to drizzle leaving me perplexed – why is my grass still so wet an hour after todays drizzle stopped?
I’m willing to occasionally read Tamino’s quotes and look at his cherry-pickings, but I won’t visit his site again if I can help it. Been there.
Going back further.
Swedish weather SMHI has a reconstruction of temeperatures from Anders Celsius town Uppsala starting 1722-.
http://www.smhi.se/polopoly_fs/1.2848!image/temp_ar_uppsala_2012.png_gen/derivatives/fullSizeImage/temp_ar_uppsala_2012.png
Gareth,
There is always “something going on”. If you want to advocate sensible preparation, we can agree. If you want to chase AGW unicorns using my money, I will pass.
lsvalgaard says:
“Not to mention that the temperature now is almost a degree higher than a hundred years ago while solar activity now is the same as it was back then.”
Doesn’t that statement rather forget the AR1 nature of the temperature record?
Global mean temperature is a clumsy proxy for part of the energy content of the Earth but it remains an energy term. SSN presumably is a proxy for a power quantity. That would suggest it should be compared to rate of change of temperature or more likely a less simplistic function, dependant on how quickly the climate system is reckoned to react to such a change.
One thing is sure , if you compare power to energy you are unlikely to see a convincing direct correlation.
I’m not arguing that there is a strong SSN signal here, just noting the irrelevance of the quoted comment.
If this was Tim Yeo posting I would accept it as ignorance. I’m surprised to see such a comment from a solar physicist.
lsvalgaard says:
February 7, 2014 at 7:11 am
“Apart from the fact that neither solar activity nor global temperature are not well known millennia back, what little reliable data we have does not support your assertion, see slide 20”
Indeed I think that slide makes my point rather well. The Global temperature figure is at least as high or higher as of today and the TSI is at or around that of today as well.
Therefore TSI and temperature are not well directly correlated. Temps can be higher or lower from the same TSI figure. Do you dispute that?
Gareth Phillips:
At February 7, 2014 at 7:16 am you say
Whatever the merits of your analogy, there certainly is “something going on” and we certainly “can work to meet the challenge or even modify the downside of any impacts”.
The “something going on is that “eco-loons have placed an imaginary “environment” at higher priority than reality and the needs of people.
The people of the Somerset Levels have learned this the hard way. Today I listened to the radio and heard a woman who lost her home and its contents to the floods this very morning as the waters continue to inundate her village.
The Somerset Levels are a much, much better analogue of the “something going on” than your “using the human body as a metaphor”. A bird sanctuary was declared to be more important than the necessary water maintenance of the Somerset Levels. The complaints of the people living on the Levels were ignored and they were forced to watch as the rivers inexorably silted up so the Levels returned to their natural state. Many square miles have flooded including the loss of many homes and farms while all the wildlife in the area has drowned: so much for care for the environment.
And “we can work to meet the challenge or even modify the downside of any impacts” by rejecting the insanities promoted by ‘environmentalists’.
We need to oppose real pollution because that improves everything. But we need to completely reject the insanity of ‘environmentalism’ which is killing people and damaging the environment. There is NO discernible AGW, there never has been, and it is becoming clear that it is unlikely there ever will be. Constraints on energy use are a crime against humanity. Expensive energy sources such as wind and solar are crimes against the poor. And these crimes damage the environment, too. We need to oppose all these crimes.
We can do these things, Gareth Phillips, and we can make the world a better place by doing them. But we need the courage to fight ‘environmentalism’. Do you have the necessary courage, Gareth Phillips?
Richard
Possibly you conflate deterministic response (in a ‘patient’) with chaotic, non-deterministic behavior in weather; a ‘doc’ of your caliber I would rate as less than capable of rational differentiation of symptoms than most, then, and should be avoided by all …
Do you think that ‘weather’ has a mind? Caveat to all others: this is a trick Q for the doc, who I think has ‘hardware’ in need of tightening (IMO, literally, he ‘has a screw loose’).
It is a good thing he is in medicine where the patient (the human body) heals himself (itself) given the proper environment and prescription or two a majority of the time … and that he is NOT in the field of engineering turning out products like ‘Galloping Gurtie’ (bridges) or the de Havilland DH 106 Comet (early jet aircraft plagued with structural issues) …
.
Why do we even bother with a person who in order to established credentials needed to get published stooped to claiming to work a fake statistical firm as his place of employment with an address that is a open field in rural Connecticut.
Grant Foster aka Tamino doesn’t deserve anyone paying any attention to his work good or bad. It only serves to establish his fake credentials. Ridicule is the only thing he has earned.
It’s 5 oclock somewhere and of course someone is either dying, being born, or in this case drinking! Stupidity is a disease that is fueled by dictators, liars and false prophets! Dream on you gods of global warming….
Correction, the address of Tempo Analytics is a field in rural Maine not Connecticut.
Doug Badgero says:
February 7, 2014 at 7:37 am
Gareth, There is always “something going on”. If you want to advocate sensible preparation, we can agree.
Since I know of no data showing anything anthropogenic or harmful is “going on”, other than normal planning for the future count me out of “sensible preparations” (whatever that is). I am more concerned about unintended consequences and the possibility (probability?) of doing harm. So far the track record (e.g. using corn for fuel, cutting down trees for use in power plants, energy poverty, etc.) of “sensible preparations” has been to do more harm than good. I would support a “do no harm” policy over “sensible preparations.”
Thank you Richard Courtney It’s interesting that you believe that dredging the rivers on the Somerset levels will ease the unprecedented flooding I agree it may make some difference, but will shift the water downstream to various villages and towns which will flood instead. Ultimately it’s a question of the amount of rain falling exceeding the potential for drainage. Even if the river were dredged, how much difference would it make? 5%? 10 at maximum? We would then get townspeople and industrial areas suffering instead of agricultural land and hamlets. Which has priority? I would hate to have to make such a choice. I know most people on this blog think this man is spawn of Satan, but he writes a good article on this question. Have a read. http://tinyurl.com/pyj48kv
The problem is much further upstream as it were, it is in reality an example of climate change. I know we disagree as to the causes, but the impact is here and very real, and there are people suffering. We have to adapt, we have to prepare because this is how it is. Celebrating the fact that the rise in surface temperatures have flattened off over the last decade is to my mind being pleased it’s a calm night on the Titanic. I don’t think either of us would celebrate rainfall and storms of the level we have experienced in the UK since last year in the future because although they were just as bad, they have not got any worse.
Sometime you have to recognize what is going on, you are faced with some reality orientation and you have to respond. You have to live in the here and now. Sometimes it’s hard, it conflicts with all your beliefs and view of the world, it can be a traumatic experience. You are right, I needed to be brave to do it, will you look out the window? Or continue to take refuge in avoidance behaviour ?
I’d rather see the mistakes posted and the commenters tear them apart with facts, logic and methodology. We don’t need a whole lot of moderation when we have effective “peer review”. That is the wonder of WUWT!
Gareth Phillips says:
February 7, 2014 at 8:29 am
Sometime you have to recognize what is going on, you are faced with some reality orientation and you have to respond. You have to live in the here and now. Sometimes it’s hard, it conflicts with all your beliefs and view of the world, it can be a traumatic experience. You are right, I needed to be brave to do it, will you look out the window? Or continue to take refuge in avoidance behaviour ?
==========================================
Gareth, did you not read this post and look at the actual data ?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/07/is-englands-bad-weather-a-sign-of-climate-change/
I’m not being facetious here Gareth, but you really have something going a bit wrong in your head. You should get a check-up in case it’s serious.
DirkH Says
Good comment. If I take long temperature data series and run it through an FFT I get exactly what I would expect with Brown Noise – power spectral density that decreases with the square of the frequency.
Except I also see a few bumps if energy at certain frequencies (one at a bit over 60 years) suggesting periodic influences. And with longer series, like the entire Holocene using GISP2 ice core data, there appear to be longer periodic influences at around 1000 and 5000 years.
In addition to apparent periodic influences, there is also a strong damping factor. Pure Brown noise can go off in any direction almost indefinitely. Gambling is a Brownian activity; gamblers know these as winning streaks and losing streaks. The climate has damping forces that tend to bring things back to normal over time.
Except of course there are ice ages. The earth seems to have two metastable states, plus several periodic influences, plus a strong damping factor, all superimposed on Brownian noise.
There, problem solved.
Gareth Phillips:
My post to you at February 7, 2014 at 7:56 am said
Your reply at February 7, 2014 at 8:29 am proves my point.
It begins saying
It is not a “belief” it is a fact that maintenance of the dredging would have avoided the flooding.
Your assertion is a clear example of eco-loonacy which places an imaginary “environment” at higher priority than reality and the needs of people.
The Levels were a swamp that was completely flooded most of the year except for a few, small islands. Indeed, it was by hiding in the levels that Alfred the Great ended up burning the cakes because searching the reed-covered marsh was impossible.
The Napoleonic Wars provided a need for additional grain and one response was to drain the Levels to obtain additional farmland. This conversion of the swamp to agricultural land was conducted in the period 1770 to 1833, and this paper describes it.
The drainage and water management are relatively recent and entirely man-made. The Levels will always return to being a flooded swamp in the absence of proper maintenance and operation of the drainage and water management. So, the people who live on the levels KNOW they will be flooded if that proper maintenance and operation ceases. And they knew the necessary dredging of the watercourses has been stopped. And the legislation prevented them from doing it themselves. And some of them were flooded last year. And they were begging for it to be restarted before they were all flooded this year.
But, of course, you and other eco-loons know better. In a just world you and those who think like you would be made to pay the costs to replace the homes and farms of the people who have lost everything as a result of the madness of those who ‘think’ like you.
Richard
PMHinSC,
I do not see your point. Every society must decide how much to prepare vs how much to accept risk. No engineer designs for normal conditions. That is all I meant. As one example……hurricane Sandy was completely within the realm of a typical northeast hurricane that occurs every decade or so. It’s severity was completely a function of where it came ashore. How much should we prepare for the next time it happens?
Allan M.R. MacRae says:February 7, 2014 at 6:37 am
This today from GWPF – thank you Benny and all:
[…]
President Obama talked in his State of the Union speech about doubling renewable energy output over the coming years. Mr. President, these are exactly the goals the Europeans are abandoning. Why chase the losers?
–Investor’s Business Daily, 5 February 2014
As Romney pointed out in the debates, “You don’t just pick winners and losers, you pick losers.”
I personally stopped paying attention to statistical trends some years ago. Both sides of the debate can pretty much paint whatever narrative they wish. However, I do still follow M&M at Climate Audit for analysis. McIntyre usually presents both sides of the debate from a mathematical point of view. Bob Tisdale also does a great job. Most of his posts are usually up front and don’t depend upon some complex algorithm to make his point(s)
My rule of thumb is that if someone has to torture the data, then they are intent on painting a picture.
“I’m sorry, Johannes, but your eyes are fooling you badly. The correlation between HadCRUT and sunspots is a pathetic 0.014, with a p-value of 0.54.
In other words, the data you cite clearly shows that there is no correlation between the HadCRUT4 dataset and the sunspot dataset.
Which is no surprise, as many, many people have looked at the sunspots vs HadCRUT4 correlation and found nothing …
So while Tamino may indeed be very wrong … I fear you are as well.
###############################
Thanks willis.
It never ceases to amaze me that people even look for a relationship between “sun spots” and
a global temperature INDEX.
In the first place “sun spots” are an arbitrary human construction. There are rules for counting spots and those rules have changed over time. Further, “spots” isnt the kind of physical unit you want. Whatever you come up with will be dimensionally incorrect. unless of course you turn spots into watts. ( use spots as a proxy for watts)
On the other side of the equation one has a global temperature index.
HadCrut is non physical. All indexes that combine the air temperature with the temperature of water 1 meter below the surface are merely an INDEX that has physical meaning only in relation to itself over time. The index goes up the index goes down. 30% of that index comes from air temps. Air temps change rapidily and the time constants and spatial coherence is entirely different from SST, which represents the other 70% of the index. The global temperature index is a metric of chance. When it was first created scientists decided to average Air temperatures over land with SST.. not because it makes physical sense, but because that’s what they had. They could have created a air temperature average and used Marine Air Temp,
but they didnt. In fact, in the source database for SST there are just as many Marine Air temperature records.. records that dont suffer from bucket problems for example. Using the global temperature index as a system metric works ok for ‘politics’ but it doesnt advance understanding the system. OHC is much better. We are stuck, by historical chance, with the land/sea index but far too much research has gone into trying to “explain” it. It’s an index. A handy tool, but not one that provides much insight into the system as a whole. It’s slice through the system and a wacky slice at that. It’s good to keep track of it over time as it provides hints,
but I could not see founding an entire theory on it as the solar cyclists do. There’s a clown on a unicycle joke in here somewhere
I suppose people will continue to look for a solar signature in climate records. There are so many places to look they have to find something. take a million random metrics for the climate… cause there are an infinite number of possible metrics.. and you will find something. But finding one metric you can explain with cycles does not qualify as an explnation of the system.
dont find the correlation in a global temperature index? well just look at SAT. dont find it there? just look at TMAX.. dont find it there, look at SST. dont find it there look at tree rings, river heights, floods,
rain.. ice extent. you cant help but find something.
Interesting to note that Phil in California and Richard Courtney both accuse me of having serious mental health problems, apparently because I don’t agree with them, yet can’t be bothered to read the references I pos.. Besides the obvious fact that using such immature insults is offensive to those with genuine mental health problems, it’s usually a pretty good indication that a poster has run out of ideas and has to resort to insults instead. So, firstly, Phil over there in dry California commenting on floods in Somerset. Yes Phil, I did see the post, it is over a year old and related to a different situation. The key is in the date, check it out. Richard, I try not to insult you, note my conversation with Jimbo who is on your side, but never resorts to name calling. You have interesting and challenging points, but you always seem to undermine your points by going for the man and not the ball. Did you read the link? What were your impressions? By the way, hope you see the Wales Ireland match, note how the ref behaves towards those who decide to play by their own rules and ignore fair play. Good luck with the English game, hope the pitch is not too waterlogged.
DirkH Says Then there is the Null hypothesis: Climate is brown noise.
Most climate science is brown noise ( if you want be remain polite ) , it stinks too.
PMHinSC says:
February 7, 2014 at 8:24 am
Doug Badgero says:
February 7, 2014 at 7:37 am
Gareth, There is always “something going on”. If you want to advocate sensible preparation, we can agree.
Since I know of no data showing anything anthropogenic or harmful is “going on”, other than normal planning for the future count me out of “sensible preparations” (whatever that is). I am more concerned about unintended consequences and the possibility (probability?) of doing harm. So far the track record (e.g. using corn for fuel, cutting down trees for use in power plants, energy poverty, etc.) of “sensible preparations” has been to do more harm than good. I would support a “do no harm” policy over “sensible preparations.”
Thanks for that. I agree that we should do no harm. You cannot prepare for every risk, we have to balance out risk vs potential damage vs likelihood, so I agree with much of what you are saying. The point I am making is the unusual situations are becoming more frequent, and floods such as we see in the Somerset levels, cold in the US and weird weather elsewhere seems to be what we expect as being normal, not the 100-1 shot we may have previously thought . If someone said we need to spend billions preparing for the chance we will be hit by an asteroid I would oppose it, because it does not look very likely. However, if we kept getting hit by events such as the Russian impact last year or the recent Martian hit, I may reconsider that decision. It seems at the moment that is the situation in our climate, so whether you believe we have some thing to do with climate change or not, the current weather patterns certainly concentrate the mind and may may make people think again about adaption and intervention and ask what is going on.
Answer: If one believes that the dominant process determining temperature has a characteristic time of T, then one ought to use an average over T. Thus, if one believes that the sun spot cycle determines surface temperature then something like 11 years is correct; but if one can demonstrate that some longer time process, like a feedback internal to the atmosphere is dominate, then use this longer time period.
Personally I feel the atmosphere has 1/f processes throughout, perturbed occasionally by unique events and periodically by events such as variation of orbit; and, as a result, no time period provides a universally useful average.
richardscourtney says:
February 7, 2014 at 3:32 am
=============
Richard, your response to Gareth Phillips: ROFLMAO
Gareth Phillips says:
“It went up, it stayed up.It has not got statistically warmer for some time, but the patients temperature is still high and the fact that it has not risen any further is neither here nor there. Our planet is still pyrexial. With patients we prescribe anti-pyrexials such as Asprin or Paracetamol. Is there a prescription for the planet, or is everyone happy to see it stay heated? If so, the conveyor belt of storms experienced since last year in the UK will have to be accepted as quite normal as well as other climatic changes yet to be seen”.
GPs comment does appear to be a veiled ad for Vi@gra.
Still ROFLMAO
Kevin Kilty says:
February 7, 2014 at 9:44 am
“Which leads us to the question: How long should a time be for observing climate change? If we look at the sunspot activity and the clear pattern it produces in the temperature graph, the answer is: 11 years or a multiple of it.”
Answer: If one believes that the dominant process determining temperature has a characteristic time of T, then one ought to use an average over T.
—
Or one could take the view that as Climate is considered to be things that are longer than 30 years in length, something short of that value would be a good choice.
How’s about 15 years? 🙂
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/HadCrut4Monthly11575Lowpass1575SGExtensions_zps48569a45.gif
“He [Foster] states: Twelve of sixteen were hotter than expected even according to the still-warming prediction, and all sixteen were above the no-warming prediction:”
Look what the jerk has done to get that conclusion. He has not taken the data point for 1997 to draw his “no warming ” line he’s taken the intercept with his fitted slope.
Now if you take the DATA point for 1997 global temp and draw accross you get 1999,2003 below
and 2008 about equal.
And of course if you draw a straight line through the rising part of a cosine you’ll find that most of the later points are above the straight line. All this shows is what a crap idea it was to choose a linear model.
Typical Grant Foster bullshit and deception. Nothing to see here, move along please.
RichardLH says:
February 7, 2014 at 7:56 am
Therefore TSI and temperature are not well directly correlated. Temps can be higher or lower from the same TSI figure. Do you dispute that?
Certainly, TSI is a measure of the energy we get from the Sun, so in the long run the temperature will be directly related to TSI.
Gareth Phillips:
At February 7, 2014 at 9:21 am you write
BOLLOCKS! How dare you!?
Any body can read my post at February 7, 2014 at 9:06 am which is here.
It concludes saying
I stand by every word of that, and your response is to falsely claim I did not refute the rubbish you provided and to pretend I insulted you!
Normally I would demand an apology. But in this case you and those whom you cite, support and promote should crawl on your knees to the Somerset Levels and beg forgiveness from the people who have lost everything as a result of your success at promoting your madness.
Richard
So what can we deduce from Tamino’s graphs?
The information that is obvious: about a +.4C in a third of a century.
During that period CO2 increased from 330 to 390 ppm or about 22% above pre-industrial to about 44% above. (A fast changing portion of the logarithmic curve.)
And T increase is slowing down as CO2 increases further; also to be expected for a logarithmic function.
This doesn’t seem too far out of line with the agreed upon direct effect of CO2 increase: +1C in a logarithmic fashion for doubling of CO2.
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 7, 2014 at 9:54 am
Certainly, TSI is a measure of the energy we get from the Sun, so in the long run the temperature will be directly related to TSI.
This is under the assumption that the Sun is the main driver of climate, but that assumption may be false as the may be a thermostat in the climate system that keeps the temperature within rather narrow limits. We don’t know if there is such a thermostat, but I’ll not exclude it.
Greg Goodman says:
February 7, 2014 at 7:51 am
I’m surprised to see such a comment from a solar physicist.
Perhaps there is a lesson for you in that comment. Reflect on that.
lsvalgaard says:
February 7, 2014 at 9:59 am
“This is under the assumption that the Sun is the main driver of climate, but that assumption may be false as the may be a thermostat in the climate system that keeps the temperature within rather narrow limits. We don’t know if there is such a thermostat, but I’ll not exclude it.”
The Sun is certainly a fairly constant input function into the complex load that represents the Earth.
The question is if small modulations of that input function are more important than the variations in the initial response and internal storage factors in that load.
It would appear that the overall characteristic is one that is fairly stable, long term, as you note. The variability that we see appears to be more driven by the variations in the initial response TOA down to surface and storage in water, vapour, ice, etc. than by the external, small, variations in the input function. YMMV.
Brandon Shollenberger says:
Am I missing something, or did Tamino use 1997 instead of 1998 as his breakpoint? That seems a more pertinent form of cherry-picking than anything else.
As is forcing his hypothetical break in trend to be continuous with the trend of the previous interval. That is the trick he uses to artificially lower his “no trend” line from its actual location, thus putting it below the observations “proving” that there has been a positive trend after all.
It isn’t really cherry picking. It’s just lying.
RichardLH says:
February 7, 2014 at 10:17 am
The variability that we see appears to be more driven by the variations in the initial response TOA down to surface and storage in water, vapour, ice, etc. than by the external, small, variations in the input function. YMMV.
Which is precisely my point. Other factors than ‘sunspots’ are responsible for the changes we see. Solar activity does not vary enough to account for what we observe.
“madness of those who ‘think’ like you” -> “those who think like you are mad” -> “you are mad”
Sounds to me like accusing someone of having mental issues.
A) The increase in temperature we have experienced during the 20th century is nothing unusual and is quite normal, and,
B) the rain and storms suffered by the people of the UK are also nothing unusual.
A) Which half? The increase in the first half of the 20th century is almost identical to the increase in the second half. The two halves are so nearly identical in form that unless you have studied them enough to be able to pick out specific features, you won’t be able to tell which one occurred with the hypothetical help of CO_2 and which one occurred without the hypothetical help of CO_2 when they are plotted on the same vertical relative scale and the same horizontal relative scale but with the actual dates obscured.
In the first half of the 20th century, not even the most ardent warmists claim that there was enough anthropogenic CO_2 in the atmosphere to have any measurable effect. The global industrial revolution that started the CO_2 crank was 1950’s on, and there was supposedly a lag of 30 years before that had any effect (to explain the fact that through the 50’s, 60’s, and early 70’s the temperature was pretty close to flat, which didn’t fit in well with the instantly well-mixed, instantly more strongly forcing picture of CO_2 emissions.
So as a matter of pure fact, the increase in temperature experienced during the 20th century was not unusual or abnormal in any way that can be definitively linked to anthropogenic activity as far as we can tell from the data! We had little to no impact on the first half, the warming in the second half matched that of the first half (with our hypothetical help), both halves were part of a perfectly reasonable continuing century-scale rebound from the lowest temperatures experienced on Earth since the Holocene Optimum during the Little Ice Age.
It’s amazing how ignorant people who participate in this debate with total certainty that our climate is unusual are of the “patient’s” history. I like to keep the patient’s chart for the last 12,000 years handy to help them learn:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
Note well, this is smoothed. Note also that the error bars (never, ever shown in climate science) are probably as wide as the total variability envelope of all contributing reconstructions — an easy 1 to 2 C. As Lief pointed out above, reconstructing things like solar activity or temperature in the pre-instrumental era is neither easy nor precise, and the tiniest hint of bias or prior belief in the part of the researcher can effortlessly further cloud the proxy-based extrapolations by causing them to make countless small, almost harmless decisions that ultimately are cherrypicking of the data, comparing low temporal resolution data to high temporal resolution data to make erroneous statements about extremes, or ignoring the possibility of confounding causes or degradation of the data sources in those sources that match their “preferred” narrative at the expense of those that do not. If you count the assumptions — most of which cannot possibly be verified in the present — that go into reconstructions, there are many and each one contributes to increased uncertainty in the final claim.
Still, taking it for what it is worth — a possibly accurate reconstruction of the planet’s temperatures in the Holocene (post the Wisconsin glaciation, but including the Younger Dryas) that is at any rate the best we can do with the data and methods available (biased or not) at this time, what does it tell us?
First, the climate now is not warmer than it was in the Holocene Optimum (do not make the mistake of conflating the high frequency, high resolution “2004” data point with the smoothed low frequency, low resolution data in the curve — even the figure’s caption warns against doing that — for the very good reason that in every 300 year smoothed upswing it is statistically certain that the upswing involved multidecadal intervals of temperatures much higher than the running mean. It is left as an exercise to the studio audience to figure out how to use contemporary high frequency climate data to make a numerically reasonable estimate of how much warmer than the smoothed average peak multidecadal intervals almost certainly were during the warming intervals seen throughout this graph. Goodness, I think it is easily 1+C, isn’t it!
Second, the LIA really was the coldest smoothed temperature interval in the entire Holocene. It was 11,000 years, during the warming phase that pulled us out of the glacial era, since the planet was as cold as it was in the general stretch from 1400 to 1900, embracing both the LIA and the following Dalton minimum. During this interval Earth’s glaciers grew, strongly, but do not mistake the level of glaciation observed in (say) 1870 as being normal. For most of the gradually cooling Holocene, it would have been extremely abnormal. As I said, the patient fell through the ice into the river, and probably came within a hair of falling under the ice, to be trapped in another 90,000 year cycle of glaciation before the next interglacial.
Third, note well our profound degree of ignorance as to the cause of any of the features on this curve, granting that they are “features” at all — remember, the noise is on the same scale as the signal so every single bounce on this curve could be noise as far as the data is concerned. It is only what amounts to anecdotal reporting in human histories that gives us the opportunity to at least partially affirm events like the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period, the Minoan Warm Period — bobbles visible on this curve that do in fact correspond with historical times where there is direct evidence of warm temperatures, favorable climates for agriculture even at high latitudes and indeed generally benign climate conditions. Throughout human history, warm intervals have been the best of times, even when they were warmer than it is today, and the many eco-disasters being projected on the basis of failing climate models did not, in fact, occur even when the climate was much warmer than it is today.
Human models cannot predict any portion of this curve. We have the crudest of hypotheses that collectively might explain the glacial/interglacial pattern of the Pliestocene (including the Wisconsin and Holocene) in terms of long term coincidences in orbital eccentricity, axial tilt as the planet’s axis precesses, oscillations up and down in the plane of the ecliptic, the movements of the continental plates, the consequent (sometimes “dramatic”) variation in oceanic circulation, against a background of volcanic activity that can “punch” the system with a mix of rapidly varying aerosols, soot and greenhouse gases with unknown but possible heavily delayed feedback from the plastic motion of the Earth’s crust itself in response to growing or melting glaciers and the associated changes in high latitude albedo. Sure. Probably, even. But try computing on the basis of these collective hypotheses and then predicting the future unforced climate, in a chaotic system with strong, nonlinear, internal feedbacks on all of the shorter timescales driving temperatures up or down by degrees C completely independent of the 1000 year plus timescale drivers.
We are fortunate that the climate was, and probably still is, rebounding from the LIA completely independent of CO_2. Even if CO_2 is the fed-back devil the most catastrophic of warmists asserts it to be, the general trend of the Holocene towards overall cooler temperatures might make it the more desired of two evils; warming up to Holocene Optimum temperatures is surely far less likely to be destructive than any sort of plunge in temperatures, whether to LIA cold-but-manageable temperatures or to the next glacial era. Evidence from past glaciations suggests that the Earth can kick over into rapid glacier growth in as little as a century and literally plunge back into the deep freeze and kilometer-thick ice down to the latitude of New York or Pennsylvania.
There is one other graph that is entertaining to look at. The chart up above, revealing as it is, is only the chart for the last few days of the patient’s life. Here’s the chart for the patient over the post-adolescent years (the last 550 million years):
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png
Goodness, what does this chart tell us? That there is one single interval in the last 600 million years when the Earth has been as cold as it is today, climate wise. This is on a scale that makes the Pliestocene ice age that we are currently in seem small. The Earth’s temperature has been systematically dropping for since the end of the Cretaceous, and is currently colder (climate wise) than any interval since the Ordovician-Silurian transition, which (incidentally) began with atmospheric CO_2 levels of 7000 ppm — almost a full percent CO_2, and reached its minimum temperatures with sustained atmospheric CO_2 levels of 4000 ppm — 10 times the levels we have today. For this, we don’t even have a hypothesis — we have mere science fiction (the solar system drifting through an enormous cloud of space dust, asteroid impacts, fill in the blank). We have no possible way to go back in time to observe, and no credible way to obtain data on any of the myriad of possible causes.
You can click through the last 65 million years — bad news all the way — to 5 million years, where we note that our warmest temperatures in the interglacials are still not as warm as the mean, stable temperatures of 3.5 million years ago by 1 to 2 C, and that the interglacials themselves are a decreasing fraction of the time up to the present, where currently we spend 80 to 90 thousand years locked up in earth-crushing glaciers compared to 10 thousand years of interglacial, where the ice retreats to the point where humans can thrive.
All of human civilization arose in the Holocene interglacial. Think on that.
So yes, Gareth, the current temperature variations are completely normal as far as we can tell, although the patient is still suffering from serious hypothermia and was rather chilled even before falling through the ice. Right now the patient’s core temperature is probably still depressed compared to whatever might laughably be called “normal” in a nonlinear chaotic climate system being constantly driven around Poincare cycles between climate extremes, jumping around between attractors, as the dynamical evolution of coupled Navier-Stokes equations on a spinning, tipped, precessing oblate spheroidal 70% ocean-covered ball with land mountains that reach up to the top of the troposphere and in an highly eccentric orbit around a moderately variable star continues.
It’s like after discovering chaos in weather systems, the entire climate science community forgot all about it. Jeeze.
B) The rains and storms suffered by the UK people are nothing unusual? Seriously? That’s the reason you believe in CAGW, because England got a lot of rain, compared to what, exactly? Can you not tell the difference between weather and climate? Hey, the people in North Carolina have just suffered through record setting cold! That must be evidence of global cooling! Wait, we have also been blessed with a record setting dearth of high energy Atlantic hurricanes (no category 3 or higher storms have made landful in the US for an interval that actually has a chance of doubling the previous record, if it lasts another year or two). That proves what, exactly? That the weather is highly variable? That the (wait for it) climate is changing?
What part of non-stationary process is so very difficult to understand? The climate is always changing. Look at the graphs I linked up above. Intervals of climate stability on a geological time scale are rare; the climate is usually changing. That’s normal. The Pliestocene has been an entire, continuing ice age in which the climate has been rapidly changing, cycling between extremes where the warmest of temperatures are only a degree or two warmer than the present and sometimes last at those “fevered” conditions only for a century or two where the “fever” in question is hypothermia compared to the bulk of the geological record.
None of this is really a matter for much discussion. It is built right into the openly published, reasonably accepted graphs. There is, quite literally, nothing unusual about the present climate that we can detect from the data. In order to even hypothesize that the present climate is abnormal, we would have to be able to predict the normal (unforced) climate for the present. This, we cannot do, either for the present or via hindcast the past. We are cosmically clueless about how to predict the climate. The computational problem is mind-bogglingly difficult, and it isn’t even vaguely surprising that the best GCMs we can build so far are all failing, for the dual reason that they don’t have the spatial and temporal resolution that is almost certainly required to do a halfway decent job and the fact that the models were built and initialized by individuals who sincerely believe that CO_2 is driving the climate with strong feedbacks and that this climate forcing is the dominant factor in predicting the future climate. They fit the models to the last third of the 20th century and the assumption that the warming observed in this interval was dominantly anthropogenic and wonder why they fail.
Look without bias at the entire climate record, my friends. Does anyone seriously think that the GCMs can track/predict/hindcast the variations of any significant length in overall climate record using only the values set from fitting e.g. 1970 through 2000 with an assumption of strong feedback CO_2 forcing and negligible natural variation outside of this?
Really?
rgb
Tell um RGB!
lsvalgaard says:
February 7, 2014 at 10:23 am
“Which is precisely my point. Other factors than ‘sunspots’ are responsible for the changes we see. Solar activity does not vary enough to account for what we observe.”
I have begun to believe that there are factors that are co-incident with the variation in the Solar activity which can have a direct bearing on the Climate we see.
The fact that they are related in timing has people looking for a direct correlation which does not exist.
Scafetta’s papers try to show that there may well be a connection. I just do not see the mechanism by which such features can work as yet, as explained by him.
I do wonder if Gravity might be a better choice for the ‘lever’.
steveta_uk:
re your post at February 7, 2014 at 10:32 am. Quote in context.
Please explain what you think is sanity if you do not think it is madness to decide that a bird sanctuary being nearby is reason to prevent the needed water management of man-made land despite the appeals of the people whose properties are being flooded.
It is precisely this kind of lunacy which we need to stop, and AGW is being used to justify it and was being used to justify it in this case.
Richard
rgbatduke says:
February 7, 2014 at 10:34 am
“The global industrial revolution that started the CO_2 crank was 1950′s on, and there was supposedly a lag of 30 years before that had any effect (to explain the fact that through the 50′s, 60′s, and early 70′s the temperature was pretty close to flat, which didn’t fit in well with the instantly well-mixed, instantly more strongly forcing picture of CO_2 emissions.”
And none of that hand waving gives a reason for the observed variation in the measured data to date. Way too cyclic for those of a CO2 disposition. 🙂
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/HadCrut4Monthly11575Lowpass1575SGExtensions_zps48569a45.gif
lsvalgaard says:
>>
Greg Goodman says:
February 7, 2014 at 7:51 am
I’m surprised to see such a comment from a solar physicist.
Perhaps there is a lesson for you in that comment. Reflect on that.
>>
I’d be much more impressed if you could reply to the objection I raised to your equating energy and power, than philosophical comments to “reflect” on.
>>
Certainly, TSI is a measure of the energy we get from the Sun, so in the long run the temperature will be directly related to TSI.
>>
TSI is usually given in W/m^2 , you again equate this to “energy”.
While I “reflect” on whether I should still be surprised about your making such statements perhaps you could explain why.
I don’t follow your thinking; however, I have heard the 30 year figure quoted before as the dividing line between climate and weather. Is it appropriate? I don’t know. What is the origin of 30 years–what sort of analysis went into its choice?
A figure, Richard, that nicely illustrates the indistinguishability of first half and second half 20th century warming in e.g. HADCRUT4. I can pick out which is which by looking for the Pinatubo and 1997-1998 ENSO features at the end — but I study these curves. But qualitatively or quantitatively? They are identical well within the uncertainty. One with CO_2, one without. This alone confounds any assertion that we can be certain that the late 20th century warming was either abnormal or necessarily forced by CO_2. What “forced” the warming observed in the first half of the 20th century, I wonder?
Maybe nothing. Maybe this is all just natural variation of a chaotic weather system where for a century or so positive feedbacks win, then for a century or so negative ones win, against the slowly varying but really rather unpredictable projection of Milankovitch axial tilt and orbital eccentricity against the irregular shapes of the continents at perihelion and aphelion and maximum NH insolation vs maximum insolation, although all of this is causing changes in just what warms and cools where and when as the continents themselves precess underneath the secular orbital motion. And then there are the multidecadal atmospheric circulation oscillations (ENSO, the PDO, the NAO, etc) with their different and ill-defined (chaotic!) “periods”. And then there are the largely uncharted decadal scale variations in ocean currents and thermohaline circulation, with its myriad of linked processes that we don’t really understand. Want to trigger the next ice age? Divert the gulf stream so it hits Europe five hundred miles south of where it currently goes. Just 500 miles.
See what that does to England’s weather, to the arctic ice pack, to the Siberian winter., to the temperature of the Mediterranean, and as positive feedback occurs, to North America and global temperatures in general. The equator would get hotter, lose heat more efficiently, and the poles would get very cold, very quickly!
Probably. Really, of course, I don’t know for sure. One cannot properly eyeball and guess the solution to the Navier-Stokes equation “as if” some change occurs. But there is some evidence that Atlantic oceanic circulation patterns can dramatically and rapidly change global climate, and this is offered as one possible “sufficient” explanation for the Younger Dryas — the breaking of an ice dam in the melting glaciers and the draining of a huge freshwater lake that interrupted the Atlantic thermohaline circulation for almost a thousand years.
If/when the Atlantic oscillation finally inverts, we may get to find out. The change of the PDO phase is correlated with (but possibly not causal of) “the pause” and substantially increasing ice and cold in Alaska (for example). Perhaps NAO etc. phase oscillations will have a similar effect on the north atlantic, perhaps they will even divert or cool the Gulf Stream. Tiny changes there could spell serious trouble for Europe.
rgb
February 7, 2014 at 9:55 am
Gareth Phillips:
At February 7, 2014 at 9:21 am you write
Interesting to note that Phil in California and Richard Courtney both accuse me of having serious mental health problems, apparently because I don’t agree with them, yet can’t be bothered to read the references I pos..
BOLLOCKS! How dare you!?
Any body can read my post at February 7, 2014 at 9:06 am which is here.
It concludes saying
In a just world you and those who think like you would be made to pay the costs to replace the homes and farms of the people who have lost everything as a result of the madness of those who ‘think’ like you.
I stand by every word of that, and your response is to falsely claim I did not refute the rubbish you provided and to pretend I insulted you!</b
Normally I would demand an apology. But in this case you and those whom you cite, support and promote should crawl on your knees to the Somerset Levels and beg forgiveness from the people who have lost everything as a result of your success at promoting your madness.
Richard
Richard, there you go again. Screaming blue murder, accusing everyone around you of every misdeed, foul mouthed and swearing. If it was just me, I'd be concerned, but I note you do it with anyone who remotely disagrees with your viewpoint. Are you completely incapable of debating without resorting to hissy fits every five minutes?
Are you saying you did not use the following term? “But, of course, you and other eco-loons know better. In a just world you and those who think like you would be made to pay the costs to replace the homes and farms of the people who have lost everything as a result of the madness of those who ‘think’ like you”
Now let me look at this. Where did I say that flooding the levels for environmental reasons at the cost of what has happened to the citizens was a good idea?
Where did I say dredging rivers was wrong? Indeed, I did not, you just jumped to conclusions and started the usual shooting from the hip. What I said was dredging would not make a lot of difference to the flood, and that the main problem was the record rainfall, which I believe is a symptom of climate change.
In addition, examine my posts carefully and in detail and check, Did I swear at you, did I imply you were mad? Did I say you had dodgy friends ?
In reality I suspect you are not really serious, you are a wind up merchant, so I will leave it at that. By the way, it is me who is trying to point out that there is a problem with flooding and rainfall, and you who say it is mainly the fault of environmentalists and not the weather. Perhaps you could explain to the good people of the levels and the towns downriver that as long as the rivers are dredged there will be no problem.
Lastly read this carefully, even in this post in response to your aggressive posting I have not sworn, made any personal insult or screamed a hissy fit. Try it, it’s easy. Chill out.
Best wishes, Gareth ( Stay dry)
Kevin Kilty:
At February 7, 2014 at 10:55 am you ask
The period of 30 years as a Climate Normal period was decided in 1958 as part of the International Geophysical Year (IGY). Its length was purely arbitrary and was chosen on the basis that it was then thought there was sufficient global data for the previous 30 years but not before that.
Importantly, the Climate Normal (i.e. 30 years) is a period for which average data can be obtained for comparison to similar data. So, for example, GISS and HadCRUTn data sets each uses an average of a 30 year period to obtain temperature anomalies by subtracting the Climate Normal average temperature from each obtained temperature, but they each use a different 30 year period for the Climate Normal.
The use of 30 years as Climate Normal is unfortunate. It is not a multiple of the solar cycle, the Hale Cycle, ENSO, etc.. But its choice was arbitrary and was made for an apparently good reason in 1958.
Importantly, the length of Climate Normal does NOT define climate data. However, because a Climate Normal period is 30 years, it is often asserted that a period over which climate data must be obtained is 30 years. This assertion is completely wrong. Any period can be used to provide climate data provided it is specified. So, for example, global temperature is estimated for months, for years and for decades. The 1994 IPCC Report used 4 year periods to assess changes in hurricane frequencies.
I hope that helps.
Richard
Once more an article based on crap manipulated Temperature data to extract a contrary conclusion to a another one also based in crap manipulated Temperature data…
Importantly, the length of Climate Normal does NOT define climate data. However, because a Climate Normal period is 30 years, it is often asserted that a period over which climate data must be obtained is 30 years. This assertion is completely wrong. Any period can be used to provide climate data provided it is specified. So, for example, global temperature is estimated for months, for years and for decades. The 1994 IPCC Report used 4 year periods to assess changes in hurricane frequencies.
Indeed Richard, I would just add that while the time period in itself as you say has problems just as a chronological measurement, the time span in itself also has to be representative of a period which is typical of the longer term climate. A challenging task to say the least.
Gareth Phillips:
Your post at February 7, 2014 at 11:09 am is delusional.
At February 7, 2014 at 8:29 am you wrote to me saying
I replied to that – and I quoted it – in my post which refuted it at February 7, 2014 at 9:06 am. It is that post to which you objected.
Your delusional post I am answering asks me
I answer, in your post at February 7, 2014 at 8:29 am, I quoted it and I refuted it at February 7, 2014 at 9:06 am, and I have quoted it again here.
I could refute the rest of your longwinded blather here. But there is no point because anybody can read the thread for themselves. But I will address the major issue of eco-lunacy.
In your delusional post I am answering you say
My post explained that the flooding is NOT “a symptom of climate change”, and if it were then the important issue would still be the cessation of dredging which was because a bird sanctuary was nearby.
I explained that the Somerset Levels are man-made land, and I provided a link to a paper which describes how they were drained for agriculture in the period 1770 to 1833. Then I wrote
YOU IGNORED THAT. Indeed, in your delusional post I am answering you still say “dredging would not make a lot of difference to the flood”.
And you have the gall to say to me
In reality I know you are the worst kind of eco-loon who cares nothing for people and pretends to be offended when the consequences of eco-loon campaigns invoke outrage at the effects of the lunacy.
Richard
greg says:
February 7, 2014 at 10:47 am
I’d be much more impressed if you could reply to the objection I raised to your equating energy and power, than philosophical comments to “reflect” on.
You are just nit-picking. Since the surface area of the Earth is fixed, the power [TSI] applied every second is the amount of energy received in that second (energy=power * time * area). ‘TSI’ is a convenient short-hand for that.
Thanks for the information. I didn’t realize it stretches back to the IGY. It seems pertinent to the specific discussion of this thread that the modelling folks, or at least some of them, have argued that climate models do not predict flat temperature in the presence of continually increasing CO2 over some time period. Thus, from this perspective one ought to make the stated period (for some reason 15 or 17 years comes to my mind) or longer that which defines climate. It is a definition based on the physics the models actually get correct, plus measurement uncertainty. Anyway, it seems they have been hoisted now on this petard.
rgbatduke says:
February 7, 2014 at 10:34 am
=================
Excellent comment as usual.
Gareth Phillips has much to think about now. I don’t believe he is ignorant as he post a great metaphor for Father Earth to be affected by CO2 in the same way a man would be affected by Vi@gra provided that metaphor was intentional. On the other hand he may have drank too much Koolaide during his indoctrination to the school of CAGW. Either way the Vi@gra ad/metaphor was most eloquent.
Kevin Kilty says:
February 7, 2014 at 10:55 am
“I don’t follow your thinking; however, I have heard the 30 year figure quoted before as the dividing line between climate and weather. Is it appropriate? I don’t know. What is the origin of 30 years–what sort of analysis went into its choice?”
If you prefer I will just observe that 15 years also nicely separates out decadal from multi-decadal as well. That is also often used to distinguish between ‘noise’ and Climate.
In fact you can sweep the 15 year corner up and down quite a bit and still arrive at the same conclusions. The particular choice is rather arbitrary but convenient.
richardscourtney says:
February 7, 2014 at 11:47 am
Gareth Phillips:
Your post at February 7, 2014 at 11:09 am is delusional.
At February 7, 2014 at 8:29 am you wrote to me saying
Thank you Richard Courtney It’s interesting that you believe that dredging the rivers on the Somerset levels will ease the unprecedented flooding I agree it may make some difference, but will shift the water downstream to various villages and towns which will flood instead.
I replied to that – and I quoted it – in my post which refuted it at February 7, 2014 at 9:06 am. It is that post to which you objected.
Your delusional post I am answering asks me
Where did I say dredging rivers was wrong?
I answer, in your post at February 7, 2014 at 8:29 am, I quoted it and I refuted it at February 7, 2014 at 9:06 am, and I have quoted it again here.
I could refute the rest of your longwinded blather here. But there is no point because anybody can read the thread for themselves. But I will address the major issue of eco-lunacy.
In your delusional post I am answering you say
What I said was dredging would not make a lot of difference to the flood, and that the main problem was the record rainfall, which I believe is a symptom of climate change.
My post explained that the flooding is NOT “a symptom of climate change”, and if it were then the important issue would still be the cessation of dredging which was because a bird sanctuary was nearby.
I explained that the Somerset Levels are man-made land, and I provided a link to a paper which describes how they were drained for agriculture in the period 1770 to 1833. Then I wrote
The drainage and water management are relatively recent and entirely man-made. The Levels will always return to being a flooded swamp in the absence of proper maintenance and operation of the drainage and water management. So, the people who live on the levels KNOW they will be flooded if that proper maintenance and operation ceases. And they knew the necessary dredging of the watercourses has been stopped. And the legislation prevented them from doing it themselves. And some of them were flooded last year. And they were begging for it to be restarted before they were all flooded this year.
YOU IGNORED THAT. Indeed, in your delusional post I am answering you still say “dredging would not make a lot of difference to the flood”.
And you have the gall to say to me
In reality I suspect you are not really serious, you are a wind up merchant, so I will leave it at that
In reality I know you are the worst kind of eco-loon who cares nothing for people and pretends to be offended when the consequences of eco-loon campaigns invoke outrage at the effects of the lunacy.
Richard
Richard, you never learn do you? Look up o line what type of person it is that never learns from their mistakes and just repeats them time after time.
Gareth Phillips says:
February 7, 2014 at 11:42 am
“Importantly, the length of Climate Normal does NOT define climate data.”
You think I’m unaware of that? Some decision has to be made and one that fits the decadal/multi-decadal as well as being as short as one can reasonably expect seems to make the choice of 15 years appropriate.
In actual fact there is very little ‘energy’ in the system above about 7 years and below 20 years or so, so the actual figure chosen could lie anywhere within that range and hardly change the output very much at all. Try if for yourself and see. (I’ll publish the R code if you insist but Greg Goodman has scripts, spreadsheets, etc. that will, do the same).
eyesonu says:
February 7, 2014 at 12:02 pm
rgbatduke says:
February 7, 2014 at 10:34 am
=================
Excellent comment as usual.
Gareth Phillips has much to think about now. I don’t believe he is ignorant as he post a great metaphor for Father Earth to be affected by CO2 in the same way a man would be affected by Vi@gra provided that metaphor was intentional. On the other hand he may have drank too much Koolaide during his indoctrination to the school of CAGW. Either way the Vi@gra ad/metaphor was most eloquent.
Hey Joscyn, who mentioned Viagra? Not me, and if you could stop fantasising about erect members for just one moment and focus on the debate you may even be able to follow it. By the way, look up the meaning of metaphors, I suspect you have misinterpreted what I say, then again …………………… Call You Next Tuesday !
rgbatduke says:
February 7, 2014 at 11:03 am
“A figure, Richard, that nicely illustrates the indistinguishability of first half and second half 20th century warming in e.g. HADCRUT4.”
It sticks a very sharp point into a lot of the puffery that surrounds the Climate debate.
Gareth Phillips says:
February 7, 2014 at 9:33 am
The point I am making is the unusual situations are becoming more frequent, and floods such as we see in the Somerset levels, cold in the US and weird weather elsewhere seems to be what we expect as being normal, not the 100-1 shot we may have previously thought .
I know of no data to support that statement. To the contrary all objective data have shown the opposite. Comments and anecdotal information are not reliable. As a start, let me refer you to
http://judithcurry.com/2013/12/11/hearing-a-factual-look-at-the-relationship-between-climate-and-weather/#more-14006
which has references to actual data that refutes your statement.
“According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there is “high agreement” among leading experts that long-term trends in weather disasters are not due to human-caused climate change.”
As you can see in the references above the data shows actual decrease in floods, cold, “weird weather”, etc. If you have other data I would like to see it.
I would further like to see any data (not claims, models, or conversation) you have showing an anthropogenic link to climate.
May I make a suggestion? It would be very useful if we could leave phrases such as “delusional” out of reasoned debate altogether, especially when applying it to one of the debators, even where it is your sincere belief that it is true. It is ad hominem and irrelevant to the truth or falsity of any assertion, it accomplishes nothing (but to get the back up of the one being called delusional and make them less likely to acknowledge any error or weakness in their argument, since that would only serve to prove that they are “crazy” and not just “mistaken”.
I personally will freely admit to being mistaken, even mistaken frequently, about ever so many things. I might even be mistaken about being mistaken, as in many cases I say things I myself am hardly certain of to see if I can rationally defend them and to draw out somebody else’s knowledge and ability to support a counter position.
I rather hope that I’m not crazy, and while I do have a thick skin, I’d still at least somewhat resent being called crazy, especially in an argument where the true parsing of the accusation is “We disagree! You are wrong! I am right!”. Note well that this is completely irrelevant to whether or not I AM wrong, right, in between, and I’m happy to concede that we disagree without disagreement being tied to insanity or delusion.
I have tried to be respectful to Gareth as I have offered refutation of his metaphors and belief that bad weather in one part of England is proof of climate change in a non-stationary system. Note that I’m not asserting that his belief is delusional, only that he is conflating weather with climate, something that the press openly encourages by reporting every single “extreme” weather event around the world as proof of climate change in spite of the fact that the normal climate sets records of extreme weather every day somewhere on the planet (unsurprising, given the miniscule interval over which we have records to find extrema within and the enormous number of locations). Citing individual weather extremes to prove climate change is a form of egregious cherrypicking, and is why we do not trust anecdotal claims to support hypotheses in science.
Now if one looks up the work of the Pielkes, who IIRC study precisely that — the statistical distribution of extreme weather events of various sorts — you will learn that there is no statistically defensible evidence for an increase in the violence, frequency, energy, or any other metric of extreme weather. No there are not more hurricanes than usual. Nor tornados. Nor are hurricanes on average stronger. Nor tornadoes. Nor are there excessive numbers of droughts (that’s a hard record to reach, by the way, as there have been some doozy droughts in the past!). Or floods. There is absolutely no statistically defensible reason to think that the weather is getting worse, anywhere.
This is a simple matter of fact. If you disagree, Gareth, then I would respectfully ask you to produce the study the finds otherwise, and look carefully at the degree of significance for the claim. Given the number of times people look for some statistically significant measure of “climate change” presumably caused by humans, it is literally inevitable that they will find some metric or another where there is a “significant” effect. This, however, is the result of data dredging (look it up, Wikipedia will educate you as will the xkcd comic “Green Jelly Beans cause Acne”). Data dredging is simply using statistics to put a patina of respectability on good old anecdotal evidence by finding SOME anecdotal evidence SOMEWHERE that is statistically significant while ignoring all of the rest that shows no effect whatsoever or even a negative effect (e.g. cat 3 storms making landfall in the Atlantic basin).
In the meantime, perhaps we could all hold off on the name calling, invective, ad hominem, and so on. I very much doubt that Gareth is trying to fool us or that his beliefs are not sincere. I merely challenge those beliefs. Are they defensible?
Gareth?
rgb
Gareth, could you please point out to me (and all of us) the anthropogenic CO2 signal in this graph from the Met Office:
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/image26.png
Gareth Phillips says:
February 7, 2014 at 3:12 am
It went up, it stayed up.It has not got statistically warmer for some time, but the patients temperature is still high and the fact that it has not risen any further is neither here nor there. Our planet is still pyrexial. With patients we prescribe anti-pyrexials such as Asprin or Paracetamol. Is there a prescription for the planet, or is everyone happy to see it stay heated? If so, the conveyor belt of storms experienced since last year in the UK will have to be accepted as quite normal as well as other climatic changes yet to be seen.
This is rubbish. The earth’s temperature changes, both upwards and downwards. Implying that an upward change measured over a short period of time is indicative of a “sickness” that can be cured is preposterous. Also, you are making the implication that a particular snapshot of temperature is “normal” and current temperatures have departed from “normal”, which is also preposterous.
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 7, 2014 at 9:54 am
Leif, while I generally agree with you, this claim (that in the long run TSI rules the temperature) ignores the obvious—the thermally driven response of cloud increase, which cuts down the amount of energy hitting the earth. TSI goes up … clouds go up … temperature stays the same. I have demonstrated this, using actual observations, in many ways and forms.
What you have claimed is as mechanistic as claiming that the strength of the sun controls the temperature of the human body, so if we go out into the sunshine, in the long run we’ll end up with a body temperature a couple of degrees warmer than if we stay in the shade …
That kind of thinking works fine in a mechanistic universe. On the other hand, in our universe where a straight line is NOT the favored distance between two points, it doesn’t work … see the endless meandering of rivers as one of many examples of times when nature doesn’t follow the obvious, linearly-related, straight-line path that our mechanistic understanding always wishes it would follow …
w.
Gareth Phillips – Please just answer this one question… what is the ideal ‘average’ temperature of the earth?
rgbatduke:
At February 7, 2014 at 12:39 pm you ask
His “beliefs” are his own. His assertions about the tragedy in the Somerset Levels are NOT defensible.
Furthermore, his claim that he said other than he did when his words were specifically quoted is either delusion or deliberate lie. In either case, correction is not amenable to reason.
But the fact is that the campaign posed by his ilk – and which he still tries to defend – has caused a disaster for hundreds of families, and failure to expose that truth to onlookers assists continue of many similar campaigns which are being conducted.
This is not merely some academic discussion. It is a fight against an insane philosophy which places a bird sanctuary above the lives and homes of hundreds of people.
Richard
rgb, Gareth will not be able to refute you regarding the data associated with the recent rise in CO2 and “extreme” weather events, obviously.
He will, however, show up on the next thread on this subject arguing as if he never read your post or looked at the data, with the same arguments. At that point I will make the same point I made above, which was not invective, which is why I prefaced my comment by saying I was not being facetious. There is a syndrome associated with this exact type of behavior – continuing to not be able to get something out of your head when it has been repeatedly pointed out that you are wrong.
He accuses me of saying that because I don’t agree with him when, in fact, it’s the hard scientific data that does not agree with him. I just passed on the data to him via my link to Paul Homewood’s post.
Of course there are other alternatives, such as he has a CAGW agenda to spout, or that he just can’t grasp actual scientific data.
RichardLH says:
February 7, 2014 at 10:39 am
OK, you’ve unburdened yourself. In the best California New-Age fashion you’ve shared your data-free, uncited, unsubstantiated belief in something that you don’t even begin to describe but still think exists … and you wonder if it might be capital-G “Gravity” that is the ‘lever’ …
Richard, do you actually think that Gravito-babble means something? Did you go to one of those schools where everyone gets a prize, so no one feels left out?
And more to the point, do you think anyone here cares about your puerile handwaving theories?
Come back when you have something to say that has some solidity, some numbers, some real hypothesis, something other than childish wonderings. So far, you’re just wasting electrons, and your vacuous comments suck the very oxygen from the scientific air.
w.
Gareth Phillips:
My post at February 7, 2014 at 11:47 am is here. It cites your words where you have repeatedly stated falsehoods that have been repeatedly refuted and quotes your words I had answered but you claim to have not written.
At February 7, 2014 at 12:07 pm you have replied to that saying in total
Oh, I learn all the time. For example, today I have learned that you are a contemptible eco-loon who never learns from his mistakes and just repeats them time after time.
Richard
lsvalgaard says:
February 7, 2014 at 12:01 pm
greg says:
February 7, 2014 at 10:47 am
I’d be much more impressed if you could reply to the objection I raised to your equating energy and power, than philosophical comments to “reflect” on.
You are just nit-picking. Since the surface area of the Earth is fixed, the power [TSI] applied every second is the amount of energy received in that second (energy=power * time * area). ‘TSI’ is a convenient short-hand for that.
====
I’m not knit picking , power is the time derivative of energy, they are not interchangeable , neither is one “shorthand’ for the other.
If TSI (power) in some way affects mean surface temperature it is not going to correlate with temperature directly unless the whole effect equilibrates in a time-scale much shorter than a solar cycle.
Willis Eschenbach says:
February 7, 2014 at 1:15 pm
“OK, you’ve unburdened yourself. In the best California New-Age fashion you’ve shared your data-free, uncited, unsubstantiated belief in something that you don’t even begin to describe but still think exists … and you wonder if it might be capital-G “Gravity” that is the ‘lever’ …”
Thank you for your considered, scientific approach to an outline question.
Data free! All I ever do is show data. And summaries of it. Nothing more. Please tell me what you believe are the reasons for the periodicity that is evident in the data. I really want to know.
I seek a mechanism, any mechanism, that will explain what I see. Gravity has to be a candidate. How do you so easily exclude it?
For three solar cycles the oceans release sub-surface heat into the LT, which we record. For three cycles additional heat is transported below the surface, and cold water is brought to the surface, where it is measured as surface temp. I don’t have a reason why, but it is quite clear to me, that there is a link, between the sun, the oceans, and the temps of the LT.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1880/to:1912/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1912/to:1942/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1850/to:2014/normalise/offset:-.5/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1942/to:1975/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:1880/trend
Russ R. says:
February 7, 2014 at 1:45 pm
“For three solar cycles the oceans release sub-surface heat into the LT, which we record. For three cycles additional heat is transported below the surface, and cold water is brought to the surface, where it is measured as surface temp. I don’t have a reason why, but it is quite clear to me, that there is a link, between the sun, the oceans, and the temps of the LT.”
Perhaps 3 * 11 * 2 = 66 and that (or close approximations to it) has been well observed before?
I look at these plots ; for example HADCruD4gl and see data extremes from +0.8 down to -0.4 , a total range of 1.2 deg. Celsius anomaly (not Temperature).
It’s 1245 PDT in California, and I’ve been up since 0700, when I pulled the blinds and let the morning twilight start shining in. It’s rainy, so we haven’t seen the sun yet, and it’s been almost six hours.
My dining room/kitchen Temperature has already already risen by at least three times that HADCruD4gl total extreme range, for about the last 55 years.
Ho hum ! clearly nothing is happening that doesn’t happen almost any day round where I am.
Nothing to see here, so I don’t waste time or effort smoothing it. I can live with the unsmoothed extremes, and actually not even notice that anything is changing.
These scatter plots are really something.
We start with a set of numbers from -0.6 up to + 1.0; not units at all, but possibly deg. C and maybe our set has 160 numbers in 0.01 deg. C increments; we’ll call that column (a).
Then we take another set of numbers labeled from 1960 up to 2015. Again NO units, but they could in fact be calendar years, so a range of 55 years; possibly in months so maybe 660 numbers. We’ll call that column (b).
Now there is absolutely NO physical connection between column (a) in maybe deg. C , and column (b) in maybe calendar years. But not to worry; with scatter plot, you just plot one number against another number to get a point in the scatter plot.
Now the area of the rectangle would seem to be 1.6 deg. C times 55 years, which equals 88 Deg. C Yrs total area. And each “pixel must be 0.01 deg. C times 1/12 year or 8.333..E-4 deg. C Yrs.
No idea what the SI units fro deg. C Yrs are but who cares.
So now we make up a “data set” of number pairs, by taking “one from column (a)”, and taking “one from column (b)” ; in any order I might add; to get pairs of numbers, quite unrelated to each other.
Now we do have one additional rule. we choose to restrict the use of the numbers in column (b), so any number can only be used once. We don’t apply this restriction to column (a) for some unexplained reason. So numbers in column (a) can be used any number of times, or even not at all, while numbers in column (b) can only be used once, but also maybe not at all.
So perhaps it is more logical (but not required) to pick the column (b) number first, and since the order doesn’t matter, why not in ascending order from 1960 on up to 2015. That way we can be sure we use them all, except the ones that aren’t used.
So now we plot our scatter plot of points; pretty much exactly like Willis did the other day, when he plotted yearly anomalies against monthly anomalies on a graph with a years. months area, and pixel size.
Now Willis plotted only the points; they have no size. He did not connect them with zig zag lines.
But for some reason, on deg. C Yrs plots, it is fashionable to join the dots with zig zag lines.
I don’t know why, because there are simply no numbers in column (a) or column (b) that correspond to places in between the dots..
Now the dots in Willis’s plot weren’t joined, but he was able to perform rigorously defined mathematical algorithms on them, to come up with a straight line drawn on the chart.
Now just the other day, Lord Monckton, did a similar operation as Willis; this time on an RSS data set, and he too derived by similar methods , a straight line related to the RSS data set. That line had a zero slope horizontalness, for all intents and purposes, which was the point of Christopher’s analysis, absolutely nothing untoward is happening.
Willis’s scatter plot, was much more exciting; it had a positive left to right slope. Clearly a sign of busy bee like activity. But as I recall, there wasn’t ANY time axis on Willis’s scatter plot; just degrees versus degrees of different anomalies.
But we sure got the sensation that something was happening in Willis’s scatter plot; when there was no activity at all.
Lord Monckton’s plot suggested complete inactivity; absolutely nothing is happening, even though he does have a time axis.
But clearly there was lots of activity in Christopher’s plot. The actual RSS original raw data, was dancing all over the place up and down about the totally dead trend line of His analysis.
So as Willis said, you can draw scatter plots of any set of pairs of numbers whether related or not.
And you can create those pairs of numbers by whatever process you want, and then perform any of these quite rigorous algorithmic processes to create the illusion you want; of nothing at all, in the case of Christopher’s RSS set, or a hive of activity, in Willis’s anomaly-anomaly scatter plot.
The results are quite exact if you do the arithmetic correctly, and quite rigorous, and derive a variety of intrinsic properties of your data set of paired numbers, from column (a) and column (b).
But those results relate to only the set of number pairs themselves.
There are NO numbers of the set, in between plotted points, so NO point in drawing a zig or zag between them. We have zero information as to how the time increment got from March 1980 to April 1980, and what happened to the deg. C anomaly on the way. It might have shot up and back down, or verse vicea. The analysis tells us NOTHING about what goes on in between any two adjacent dots, and the straight line is as unlikely as anything else. We can say whether the anomaly went up or went down between those two months.
But what about December 1959. The analysis, tells us nothing about the anomaly for that month, and moreover, it cannot even tell us whether the Dec. 1959 anomaly was down from Jan 1960 or whether it was up.
Well the same is true at the other end. No analysis on the RSS data set up to Dec. 2015 will tell us what the Jan.2016 anomaly will be, and once again, it won’t tell us whether it goes up, or goes down, or stays the same. Well columns (a) and (b) can have gaps in them; so there might not even be a pair of numbers for Jan. 2016 anomaly. Hopefully the month Jan. 2016 will still be there.
So it’s not about the analysis; that is quite rigorous. It’s about the interpretation, and whether anything is happening or not.
I seek a mechanism, any mechanism, that will explain what I see. Gravity has to be a candidate. How do you so easily exclude it?
Wait, I know, I know! Call on me!
Could it be because gravity is a conservative force and cannot heat or cool planetary air at all?
Note well, this isn’t to minimize the role of gravitation in establishing things like convective rolls and the DALR in an open, externally heated and cooled climate system, but it itself adds nothing whatsoever but a gradient that drives convective processes that have some other free energy sources and sinks.
Also, note well, gravity is not changing. The climate changes all the time.
rgb
rgbatduke says:
February 7, 2014 at 1:57 pm
“Wait, I know, I know! Call on me!
Could it be because gravity is a conservative force and cannot heat or cool planetary air at all?”
The tides come and go all the time you know. Canute tried to point out that fact. He knew but could not convince others.
The oceans are an oscillating system that is in a resonance frequency with the sun. The oceans are always in a dynamic equilibrium, of temp stratification, and mixing due to tides, storms, currents, and wind created swells. They store more heat than they release, until there is a trigger, that causes them to release more than they store. The phases have both positive and negative feedback “weather patterns” that maintain the trend, or oppose it. All that is required, is that the trend, has reached its “capacity to maintain the trend”, and the opposing patterns will reverse the trend.
It is similar to the video of the metronomes that are on a low friction surface. They will eventually find harmony. The oceans are in harmony with the solar cycle, and the temp record, is driven by the storage and release of heat, in the oceans.
Russ, you need to look back further than three cycles or at least look a lot more critically at those cycles. The phase of temp and SSN drift out over time , before WWII they get totally out of phase (one goes up the other goes down).
This was discussed recently in the context of the claim mean sea level correlated to solar cycles, it’s the same thing.
I did a cross-correlation of those two , that is a techniques which sees how the two vary together. I found that there was another close cycle that was causing an interference pattern. This accounts for the phase drift, it came out as about 9.2 years.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=760
So if you try to assume it’s just solar dominated it does not work. There are other factors at play.
Looking at the power spectrum of that relationship shows quite a simple spectrum
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=759
The main peak could well be solar related and shows some spread, as there is in the solar periodicity. There is also 22.6 and broader spread around 5.4 years.
The combination of the latter two could sum to account for the 9.2 value (the average of ‘beat’ frequency).
Sadly, when there are a lot ( or at least several ) factors interacting it requires some spectral detective work to understand how it all goes together. Simple correlation coeffs of one suspected input will not be sufficient to either confirm or refute a suspected influence.
Much of the talk in climatology is of “pseudo-cycles’ because it all seems very irregular and unpredictable. Once we understand how different cycles interact we can start to realise that much of the ‘pseudo’ aspect is just two or three cycles interfering with each other.
BTW I’m using “interference” in the technical spectroscopic or audio sense , not in the common language sense of messing each other up.
RGB “…. but it [gravity] itself adds nothing whatsoever but a gradient that drives convective processes that have some other free energy sources and sinks.”
I agree in principal that gravity can’t heat the earth but it does determine the lapse rate ( the gradient you refer to ). Isn’t it then possible for that change the height and hence temperature of the troposphere thus cloud amount and thus affect the TOA energy budget.
Also changes in convective processes could change surface temps.
Maybe that what you were pointing out.
Also gravity is not constant otherwise we would not have tides and predictable exceptional high tide amplitudes like the once the coincided with Sandy.
Au contraire, it was hypothermic, and is still below optimal. The nadir of the LIA was NOT an ideal, but a crisis to be dreaded.
GE Smith: “Now the dots in Willis’s plot weren’t joined, but he was able to perform rigorously defined mathematical algorithms on them, to come up with a straight line drawn on the chart.”
Sorry, doing linear regression on scatter plots is not a “rigorously defined mathematical algorithms” it’s a rigorously mis-applied algorithm, which almost always gives the wrong answer . (see regression dilution )
It is only valid when you have one controlled variable with minimal error. This is the case for a time series like you had before you started pretending it was a scatter plot.
Misuse of linear regression is one reason by climate sensitivity is over-estimated: slope too small ; CS too big.
Re: greg says:
February 7, 2014 at 2:26 pm
I have decided it is not the actual SSN that matters. That is why the correlations are so poor. It is more about the oceans ability to sustain the current trend. They will maintain a cycle that is releasing heat into the LT, until the negative feedback’s have a slight advantage over the positive ones. That happens at the end of the third cycle. The first and second cycles end, without changing the trend, because they don’t get enough positive feedback from the oceans to overcome, the current trend. The third one ends with a climax of warmth, or cold, that depletes the oceans ability to maintain the current trend, and a new one begins.
Is this really a proper analysis ?
You assume, there is a single variable relationship, which is, that sunspots control temperature. And that’s how you classifiy the signifcance of your p value.
However, in reality, there are multiple influences governing temperature. That correlation and that p value may then not suggest what you think.
For example, if it is assumed that sunspots (or better the AP index) on such timescales would be accountable for 30% of the temperature response, I would contest that this p value would “clearly show” the opposite.
Wouldn’t it be better to compute a regression with multiple variables ? But there are, as well, major difficulties, such as linear dependence of temperature response on each variables, independance of variables and completeness of the variable set.
Like RichardLH, I have also been banned by Tamino so I’ m certainly not of his followers. However, it needs to be said that Tamino’s graph is not a trick. There are effectively 2 ways of interpreting the temperature data over the past 30-odd years, i.e.
1. There has been NO significant warming since 1997 (or 1998 or whatever)
2. Warming of ~0.17 degrees per decade has continued since 1997 (or 1998 or whatever)
Depending on the question asked (or the hypothesis proposed) BOTH statements can be TRUE. To illustrate consider the dataset which shows least warming, i.e. RSS. Since 1997 the RSS trend is -0.013 ±0.201 °C/decade (2σ)
If our NULL Hypothesis is that there has been no warming since 1997 then we would clearly have to accept that as the ZERO trend lies within the 2-sigma confidence interval. Fine – but what if the NULL hypothesis was that warming was continuing at the rate of 0.17 degrees per decade. Again there is no reason to reject the NULL hypothesis since a trend of 0.17 degrees per decade also lies within the 2-sigma CI.
It will be some time before we see if there is a genuine change in the trend. For what it’s worth, I doubt very much there will be a strong cooling trend but the warming trend is likely to be less than that projected by IPCC models.
… and you’d need a variable lag as one of the parameters at least.
Then there’s the added problem that the response, once isolated, may not be simple linear fn of the forcing even with a lag. It will more likely be a combination of the forcing and its derivative in a way that corresponds to a laplacian decaying exponential response (ie a linear relaxation).
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=399
Even that is assuming that there is one single time constant in the climate system response to a particular forcing.
This is really NON trivial stuff. That is why the various attempts at linearly regressing various “forcings”, even multivariate linear regressions, get poor results.
Then naive authors ( such as the Great “Professor” Tamino ) start thinking they have derived the proportion of all the major drivers and what’s left must be AGW.
With all the possible drivers, possible response function plus possibly internal oscillations, you need some many free variables you will always manage to get a fit where the residual can credibly be attributed to the sampling error.
Really all this kind of exercise can do is suggest some possible relationships and interactions that can then be used as a starting point for further study of mechanisms etc.
It would be really neat if climate was determined to about 90% by one major driver that could be estimated by simple linear regression of a few hypothetical response functions. Sadly it’s a bit more complicated.
pyromancer76 says:
February 7, 2014 at 7:16 am
we seem to be in some kind of solar minimum (again), but what was the sun “doing” during the 100-year interim?
It was doing the same thing as it did in the 19th century and in the 18th: going from a minimum to a maximum and then back to the minimum again. Did climate do the same? I think not.
greg says:
February 7, 2014 at 1:26 pm
neither is one “shorthand’ for the other.
If I use one as a shorthand for the other, then it is a shorthand for the other in my usage. TSI is usually taken as an indicator of the energy received, so you were nitpicking. You want to nitpick some more?
If TSI (power) in some way affects mean surface temperature it is not going to correlate with temperature directly unless the whole effect equilibrates in a time-scale much shorter than a solar cycle.
Tell that to the author of the post who claimed that every temperature ‘pulse’ was caused by a similar sunspot pulse. Now solar activity has for three centuries been following the same course: (minimum, maximum, minimum), and if you claim the time for equilibrium is much longer than a sunspot cycle, then you cannot correlate directly with the sunspot cycle as was done. In any case, your response was just handwaving, no numbers, no mechanism, etc.
Willis Eschenbach says:
February 7, 2014 at 1:01 pm
Leif, while I generally agree with you, this claim (that in the long run TSI rules the temperature) ignores the obvious—the thermally driven response of cloud increase, which cuts down the amount of energy hitting the earth. TSI goes up … clouds go up … temperature stays the same.
I did say just after my comment, that my claim would hold unless there were a sort of thermostat [which might well be, but is not generally accepted by everybody].
Russ R. says:
February 7, 2014 at 1:45 pm
For three solar cycles the oceans release sub-surface heat into the LT, which we record. For three cycles additional heat is transported below the surface, and cold water is brought to the surface, where it is measured as surface temp. I don’t have a reason why, but it is quite clear to me, that there is a link, between the sun, the oceans, and the temps of the LT.
I have my doubts about solar cycles being relevant but I agree that the oceans are the primary driver through upwelling of cold water. The Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) is a current that circles the globe. When it speeds up we get more of the warm water on the surface replaced with cold upwelling water. When it slows down the warm surface water stays on top longer. The atmosphere is always seeking equilibration with the oceans. I suspect this is the driver of both the ~60 year cycle and the ~900 year cycle. However, I also suspect the causes of the two cycles may be different.
“”He{Grant Foster} states : Twelve of sixteen were hotter than expected even according to the still-warming prediction, and all sixteen were above the no-warming prediction:””
——————————————————————————————————
It is of interest to note how sure he is that 12 of 16 were hotter than ‘expected’. I assume this means that Foster presumes to know the average temperature of any given future year using some formula. Does he have his list of predictions for the next dozen years that we could see, so that we would be able to ascertain how accurate his initial predictions were? How far above the anticipated predictions were the actual temperatures?
Cross-correlation … never even makes it to a correlation of 0.10 … using the same data from WoodForTrees as in the head post.
w.
Gareth Phillips says:
February 7, 2014 at 3:12 am
If so, the conveyor belt of storms experienced since last year in the UK will have to be accepted as quite normal as well as other climatic changes yet to be seen.
———————————————————————————-
Excuse me for being impolite, but b.s..
Greg Goodman says:
February 7, 2014 at 3:58 am
————————————-
That was helpful regarding the Bavarian temp record.
The Bavaria record shows a strong resemblance between the last 20 years 1990/2010, and the period 1790/1810. I have noticed similar before on different long term graphs of historical temps.
Straight line linear regression is just plain ignorance. When we already know that climate processes rise and fall, putting straight lines on any rise-and-fall system, chaotic or not, gives absolutely nothing usable for the long term. Between now and 2100 there will be several ups and downs. And we could play with straight lines till we turn blue in the face, and it will tell is NOTHING that won’t be wrong within 5-15 years.
John Finn says:
February 7, 2014 at 4:51 pm
“Like RichardLH, I have also been banned by Tamino so I’ m certainly not of his followers.”
Welcome to the club (or am I joining you?) 🙂
“Since 1997 the RSS trend is -0.013 ±0.201 °C/decade (2σ)….It will be some time before we see if there is a genuine change in the trend.”
Using Linear Trends (a discrete function) is always going to be a poor second cousin to using a true continuous function such as a filter if you are trying to predict what a data set will do in the near future.
Using LOWESS (a continuous OLS function built on short LTs) is going to be less useful than an S-G filter (using OLS to an underlying curve). IMHO.
All estimation devices suffer from the same problem however. They are only estimations. They need backing with some invariant core backbone such as I try to do with the CRTM filters I have applied to the data. This at least allows a reasoning for the estimation parameters then chosen.
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/HadCrut4Monthly11575Lowpass1575SGExtensions_zps48569a45.gif
Steve Garcia says:
February 8, 2014 at 12:51 am
“Straight line linear regression is just plain ignorance.”
‘Linear Trend’ = ‘Tangent to the curve’ = ‘Flat Earth’ 🙂
Willis Eschenbach says:
Cross-correlation … never even makes it to a correlation of 0.10 … using the same data from WoodForTrees as in the head post.
===
That would be a better place to start but like I said in some detail above, any single variable analysis will not show a relationship even it if exists unless it really the dominant signal. Since many appear to think it is you go someway to disproving that misconception.
FWIW , here is the spectrum of HadCruft4 that I did some time ago.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=121
Main peak is lunar not SSN,
The other thing here is that HadCruft4 is really not the right place to start looking anyway. It is a composite dataset of SST and land temps ( E&OE ) . Land is twice as sensitive to radiative change as ocean and has a strong N/S bias. Land will also have a notably different time constant in its response to radiative change.
Since surface temp is some clumsy proxy for heat content which ignores many pertinent variables, this sort mixed data will be further muddy the waters.
Most of reason that climate science makes no progress on attribution is that their methods and data would not find one even if is were present.
In view of the prevalent mode of thought at UEA and other guardians of the data, this may well be intentional.
I don’t think the solar component to surface temps is strong but the plot you provide is not the right way to go looking for one. SST only would be a better start.
From the volcano stack plots I did I would conclude that tropics are fairly immune to radiative changes and that any solar signal will be more likely to show in extra-tropical SST.
However, the mains common periodicity in SST seems to be the lunar circa 9y not solar.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=56
Greg Goodman says:
February 8, 2014 at 2:04 am
“However, the mains common periodicity in SST seems to be the lunar circa 9y not solar.”
I do wonder if the ~60 year signal has a Lunar component/source as well. I don’t have the data or skills to find it though.
taking 9.15 as a typical value for the “lunar” component that seems very widespread, and 64 as the long cycle leads to 10.68 as a frequency that could lead to an interference “beat” frequency. (That is amplitude envelop like what we hear with musical or acoustic “beats” , rather that the modulation frequency which is half as fast).
10.68 does not actually happen ( and 60 is only approximate also) but could be an averaged effect of solar cycle lengths that tend to bunch around 10.4 and something over 11. Obviously a circa 60 year period covers about six cycles and none of this is nice pure cosines.
The beat frequency is simply the difference so in terms of periods you need to look at:
1/p = 1/p1-1/p2
That gives a means to derive the 60 year figure, you then need to explain what the ‘lunar’ bit is physically and why the it is the envelop of the beats that affect climate instead of the fast cycles just averaging out to zero.
As a quick stab at mechanisms I’d say lunar tidal displacement of water mass , hence thermal energy in and out of tropics, ie longer period tides. Willis’ tropical governor would restore SST in tropics so there will be net changes in heat input to Earth system globally.
Tropics are probably fairly immune to solar changes but ex-tropics less so. The two will add to create an interference pattern.
The non linear response in the tropics means it will not just average out over a full cycle. Hence the amplitude of oscillations will probably determine the long term net effect,
Now that’s just a sketch of how such a period _could_ come about but I would not claim any more than that.
Greg:
“That gives a means to derive the 60 year figure, you then need to explain what the ‘lunar’ bit is physically and why the it is the envelop of the beats that affect climate instead of the fast cycles just averaging out to zero. ”
I suspect that the ‘beat’ is with the Solar, exactly as it is with all tides. I am thinking that the paths that the two main tidal agents follow here on Earth, both directly overhead and at ~60 degrees to that path, are the patterns to look for.
Why ~60 degrees? Because I think that this is a possibly important factor – http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/Tidalvectors_zps4fd5800f.png
The problem is that I cannot find a data set online that will allow those paths and combinations of those paths to be constructed/downloaded.
Sorry, make that 45 degrees – I’ve got 60 on my brain 🙂
A little signal processing theory and possible application to this problem: If we take the “channel” as the 60 year cycle present in nature, then the Nyquist rate – how many conclusions we are allowed to draw, if you will, or in control theory, how often we’re going to provide some feedback to control the climate – is about 30 years apart (in other words 2x the bandwidth of the channel, the theoretical limit). From practical experience with sampling oscilloscopes, you generally want 4x the Nyquist criterion to accurately reproduce a signal, so that means we should draw conclusions about every 120 years. Since we have accurate satellite data since 1979, we have to wait until 2099 to determine if there’s really a global warming signal or whether we were just drawing bad conclusions from not seeing the whole cycle a couple of times.. I’m leaving aside the problem that there might be an overlay of a 200 year cycle on top of the 60 year cycle of course – and probably many other cycles as well – though in 120 years we should accurately perceive any cycle that’s less than 60 years long, no matter how many are overlayed on the signal.
rgbatduke says: February 7, 2014 at 12:39 pm
Thank you Sir for your appeal for courtesy in debate.
A few observations:
I do not agree with Gareth but have gained some new knowledge from his conversations with you, Richard(s), etc.
While I do not necessarily agree with Johannes’ conclusions he has provoked thought and I cannot dismiss everything he says simply because he is apparently not an expert statistician.
I try to maintain an open mind on this subject because climate science is in its infancy and we really do not even fully understand what drives what. The common consensus that “CO2 drives temperature” is contradicted by the observation that CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales. I suggest that the future cannot cause the past.
Many of the comments here seem to assume that the Hadcrut4 temperature record is accurate. My work circa 2002 suggested a probable warming bias in Hadcrut3 of about 0.07C per decade since 1979. How far back in time this applies is a matter of conjecture. Is Hadcrut4 significantly better than Hadcrut3? Probably not.
The modern thermometric global Surface Temperature records are not sufficiently accurate for our scientific discussion, in my opinion.
I suggest that the 1930’s were as warm or warmer than today in the continental USA, and perhaps even globally as well. Earth was certainly warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period and earlier warm periods. There is nothing unusual about today’s climate or weather, and there is no discernable humanmade influence to date.
I have maintained the same position on the alleged global warming crisis since about 1985, which we formally stated in 2002 as follows:
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
Regards to all, Allan
This is a no-brainer. Download the data from HADCRUT4 and run slopes to earlier and earlier dates back from the latest entry. What you will find is that the earliest date that still can be found that delivers a zero or negative slope is about November of 2000. (I’m doing this from memory – I think I posted this same stuff here about a week ago – I’m away from home on a hotel machine) but prior to that November date all the slopes will be positive. Doesn’t matter what B.S. Grant Wood – Taminio or the Easter Rabbit come up with.
Greg Goodman says:
February 8, 2014 at 2:04 am
Thanks for the reply, Greg … unfortunately, all I can say is huh? That’s not true in any sense. As one of many examples, if we investigate the tide for one of the minor components, that component will stand out even though there are other more dominant signals in the mix.
How do I know that? Well, because I’ve done it. Among other examples, when I lived in the South Pacific, I ran a remote shipyard, and I had to generate my own tide tables because there were none available. It’s an interesting exercise, Greg, you should give it a try.
In any case, your claim would be greatly strengthened by an actual example. I’ve given you an example, the tides, where we can “show a relationship” of a minor signal … give us a natural observational dataset that contains a major and a minor signal, and give us the analysis that you say can’t show the minor signal. Then we’ll have something to discuss.
Let me go back to where this started. In the head post Johannes said:
I called BS on that statement. I said that was not true. I’ve shown a variety of evidence in support of that, showing no correlation between temperature and sunspots, using the exact data he used for the head post.
On the other hand, neither you nor anyone else has put forward a scrap of evidence to support Johannes’s statement. You saying “any single variable analysis will not show a relationship even it if exists” is not evidence in support of his statement.
w.
Greg Goodman says:
February 8, 2014 at 2:04 am
That’s useless. Your graph has not once scrap of explanatory text with it. Go take a look at it, I’ve left a comment.
I hate following a link to find it’s a tease, with no data, no code, no explanation, no underpinnings. Please don’t do it. For heavens sake, you didn’t even put in the damn units!
w.
Greg Goodman says:
February 8, 2014 at 2:04 am
Perhaps you are right. However, since HadCRUT is 70% SST, if there were a sunspot signal in SST we’d see it in HadCRUT. We don’t.
It’s an interesting analysis, Greg. Again, without a link to code and data it’s just advertising … but it’s interesting advertising.
I have no problem with the nine-year cycle, because it’s present in the tides and those forces are well understood. In the Keeling and Whorf paper I’ve discussed recently, the authors say:
w.
Greg Goodman says:
February 8, 2014 at 2:04 am
FWIW , here is the spectrum of HadCruft4 that I did some time ago.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=121
Main peak is lunar not SSN,
As the period of lunar nutation is 18.6 years [half of it is 9.3] how can you claim the peak is lunar? So your ‘FWIW’ is ‘not much’.
Willis: “You saying “any single variable analysis will not show a relationship even it if exists” is not evidence in support of his statement.”
Neither did I claim it indicated support for his statement. On the contrary I have posted quite a bit of comment saying how he not looking a broad enough sample and even over three cycle you can see the phase shift and … well read it.
lsvalgaard says:
As the period of lunar nutation is 18.6 years [half of it is 9.3] how can you claim the peak is lunar? So your ‘FWIW’ is ‘not much’.
====
8.85 interference with 18.6/2 gives 9.06 . The interference pattern produces 9.06 modulated by about 356 years. So what comes out on on spectral analysis is the circa 9.06.
I think this is the same signal as Scafetta found in JPL Horizon data and showed it was due to the presence of the moon by comaparing spectra of motion of E-M barycentre. BEST published a similar frequency for land ST last year.
Cross-correlation of N. Altantic and extra tropical N.Pacific SST (ie not PDO) gives very close to the same thing:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=755
Yes, it merited a bit more explanation but I get tired of repeating it each time.
Hope that explains the lunar attribution.
RichardLH says:
February 8, 2014 at 2:14 am
Richard, I don’t know of any lunar cycle with that periodicity. In fact, the lunar cycles only have approximate periodicity. For example, the tides kind of repeat after 18 years six months or so, but then they have a much closer repetition after 54+ years.
The best explanation of this is over at Chiefio’s blog, in his post called Lunar Cycles More Than One. Among lots of other interesting stuff is his discussion of the Saros cycle, which includes this:
The Greeks knew about this because it was important in predicting eclipses. What this means is that after that 54-year period, the sun, moon, and earth are in a straight line (thus the eclipse) and the same spot on earth is directly under the sun … except of course, only approximately the same spot, but still quite close … and that’s why the tides repeat every 54+ years.
Finally, while I’m at it, can I rail against the pernicious practice of declaring a cycle is “close to” a lunar or other astronomical cycle? I don’t care if it’s 20 years and that’s “close to” a lunar cycle. I’ve calculated tide tables. There is no 20 year cycle.
The triple Saros cycle has a real-world meaning, in that the tidal forces repeat (almost exactly) every 19,756 days. So I don’t care if you find a 60-year cycle in some random climate dataset X. Unless your cycle is 54 years 1 month, I’m not interested. The tides do NOT repeat on a 60-year cycle.
Please note that I do think the tidal cycles govern the mixing of the oceans, and that since the ocean is thermally stratified, this mixing must affect the temperature. The only question is … how much?
w.
Willis: “I hate following a link to find it’s a tease, with no data, no code, no explanation”
Fair point. I just threw it in quickly for interest, that’s why I prefixed FWIW. That graph was part of an article, I should have linked that rather than just the graph itself.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/61/
At that time I was doing the lag correlation in R , which I’ve pretty much given up using for a number of reasons. The code is not clear enough to be made public and is nothing clever enough to merit the effort of cleaning up. I presume you can do a lag correlation in R any way but if you like I could pull out the bit that iteratively does c-c in a loop and used lag() each time.
I now have an awk script to do correlation. That should be close enought to being pubishable. I have more confidence in the code doing what I asked it to do an nothing more when using awk.
For the chirp-z tranform I use some software Tim Channon was kind enough to provide me with but is not mine to hand out. I don’t know whether he could be persuaded to give you copy too. I have found it excellent.
Greg says:
February 8, 2014 at 2:28 pm
8.85 interference with 18.6/2 gives 9.06 . The interference pattern produces 9.06
Remind me where you get the 8.85 from. And 9.06 is not the 9.15 you show.
“Please note that I do think the tidal cycles govern the mixing of the oceans, and that since the ocean is thermally stratified”
If there’s any hysteresis in this process (e.g.transfer of heat between the ocean and atmosphere is faster in the positive direction versus the negative), this has the effect of a subharmonic that you can’t detect without a much longer sample period.
Almost all the discussion above appears to me to be related to the problem of – not a long enough sample means the conclusions drawn vary widely with the starting sample point or other assumption.
We simply need to collect data for another hundred years or more to be sure of what the actual underlying signals are.
Greg says:
February 8, 2014 at 2:48 pm
The code is not clear enough to be made public
If the code is not crystal clear, how can you yourself have any confidence in it?
I’ve added the following explanation under that graph now.
Power spectra are derived from auto-correlation of d/dt(SST) from the ICOADS data base.
g12m indicates a 3-sigma gaussian low-pass filter with sigma=12 months.
1400m indicates the maximum range of lag used to generated the autocorrelation function, from which the power spectra were derived.
Greg says:
February 8, 2014 at 2:28 pm
Thanks, Greg. I have to say that the “beat frequency” explanation always seems suspect to me. Yes, they are real, and yes, they exist … but they are also too easy to calculate.
In this case, however, there are other problems. First, what is “8.85”, and why would it give an interference pattern (a “beat frequency”) against the half-period of 18.6? How does that work?
Also, you seem to think that the “interference pattern” between two waves with periods P1 and P2 has the average period, since (8.85 +18.6/2) / 2 = 9.08, and you get 9.06 … or perhaps not, perhaps you are calculating it some other way.
In fact, the interference pattern between two waves with periods P1 and P2 has the period (P1 * P2) / (P1 – P2), which for 8.55 and 9.3 years gives us 182.9 years.
w.
lsvalgaard says: “If the code is not crystal clear, how can you yourself have any confidence in it?”
The code is “crystal clear” to me because I wrote it. It’s several things lashed together. It would be probably more effort that it is worth for someone else to try and decrypt it.
The bit I don’t have confidence in is what R is doing. Its an economists tool, not well behaved enough for science IMO. I caught it extending a data set once. I never understood how or why and don’t really care. A “language” that screws around like that I just drop and go elsewhere.
Willis, don’t confuse beats , which is the ‘rectified’ envelop of the interference pattern with the modulation frequency. In some cases that may be relevant, like phase insensitive human ear just picks up the change in amplitude. There may be cases like wind speed where this could apply in climate.
For more detail see here.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/amplitude-modulation-triplets/
The averaging needs to be done of frequency, not period. That’s why you got a slightly different value.
18.6/2 because this is the period of alignment of solar and lunar orientations. Tidal effects are wavenumber 2 causing equal and opposite forces on near and far side of planet.
8.85 is precession of the line of apsides. The largest difference between perigee and apogee is about 15% , in the tidal force varying as the inv. cube, that’s about 40%. A huge variability. 8.85 years is now long it takes for line of apsides to come back to the same alignment with sun-earth line.
Willis: “Finally, while I’m at it, can I rail against the pernicious practice of declaring a cycle is “close to” a lunar or other astronomical cycle? ”
I agree. When working with periods it needs to be damn close otherwise if all falls apart within a few cycles. If I use ‘close to’ in this context, I mean 9.06 is close to 9.1 . ie within the accuracy of extracting a peak by this method.
For example when trying to identify evidence of amplitude modulation by presence of spectral triplets, I like to see frequency symmetry better than 1% eg.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=757
PS in that case 27.6006d is ‘close to’ 27.55 days, the anomalistic month: the average period of the perigee cycle.
Greg says:
February 8, 2014 at 3:11 pm
So you just average the two frequencies and name the average the “modulation frequency”? I don’t understand that at all. Do you have a citation to something other than your own work for that procedure?
Are you claiming that if there is a signal with a period of 1 year, (frequency = 1 cycle/year) and another signal with a period of 10 years (frequency = 1/10 cycle per year), that when we put them together there is some kind of “modulation frequency” at the average frequency = 0.55 cycles and a period of 1/0.55 = 1.82 years? What does that even mean?
You’ll have to explain how that one works, because I sure can’t see it in the data, and I don’t understand how the physics might work …
w,
PS—Not that it matters, but when I average frequencies for 8.55 and 9.3, I get 9.07, not the 9.06 that you reported …
Greg says:
February 8, 2014 at 3:03 pm
The code is “crystal clear” to me because I wrote it.
As a one time professional programmer [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RC_4000_Multiprogramming_System ] I can tell you that what you say is not valid. Everybody says that even if the code is full of bugs. The only way to be sure the code works is to expose it to scrutiny by other programmers.
Greg says:
February 8, 2014 at 3:33 pm
If I use ‘close to’ in this context, I mean 9.06 is close to 9.1 . ie within the accuracy of extracting a peak by this method.
How about the 9.15 you actually found?
The tides come and go all the time you know. Canute tried to point out that fact. He knew but could not convince others.
a) Tides are not gravity per se.
b) Tides add an entirely predictable amount of energy to the Earth every day.
c) The amount of energy they add is pure noise compared to everything else that is going on.
d) Tides are without question not the cause of observed global warming as a source of energy although sure, they can help stir the pot just like gravity is needed for convection. They aren’t within two orders of magnitude of being sufficient as a proximate cause of warming. They are 0.002% of the Earth’s annual energy budget.
So no, sorry, gravity is a conservative force and tides are a tiny, tiny contribution to the Earth’s energy budget. In fact, there is only one significant contributor to the Earth’s energy budget — Mr. Sun. Everything else is pretty much irrelevant — all together their total contribution (if it were to double) wouldn’t explain climate variation.
rgb
“So you just average the two frequencies and name the average the “modulation frequency”? I don’t understand that at all. Do you have a citation to something other than your own work for that procedure?”
Willis, if you read about two lines above that in the text of mine you quote you will find a reference to an article that will hopefully explain to you all you are demanding an explanation of. (with refs to external sources in case you can’t follow the maths and you want to believe someone other than me).
This is pretty standard maths identities and the basic physics of optical, acoustic and many other phenomena what show wave like behaviour. It’s not my own private theorem.
If I provide you with links at least read them before coming back moaning that I need to explain it all.
BTW, if you use 8.85 I gave instead of 8.55, you may find you finally get the same answer as me. Dyslexia rules, KO 😉
“How about the 9.15 you actually found?”
9.15/9.06=1.009934 : within 1%
Greg says:
February 8, 2014 at 3:21 pm
8.85 is precession of the line of apsides. The largest difference between perigee and apogee is about 15% , in the tidal force varying as the inv. cube, that’s about 40%.
It sounds like you want to modulate the 9.3 year tidal period by the 8.85 yr cycle [multiplying the two amplitudes]. If you do that you get two periods 4.54 [half of your 9.06, ‘close’ at least] and 182.6 years. Not the 9.15 you found. If you add the amplitudes you get periods 8.84 and 9.29 [harmonic mean 9.06, but still not your 9.15]. Why should one add the amplitudes? It seems more physical to multiply as the tides presumably would be modulated by distance [inv. cube].
”
b) Tides add an entirely predictable amount of energy to the Earth every day.
…
So no, sorry, gravity is a conservative force and tides are a tiny, tiny contribution to the Earth’s energy budget. In fact, there is only one significant contributor to the Earth’s energy budget — Mr. Sun. Everything else is pretty much irrelevant — all together their total contribution (if it were to double) wouldn’t explain climate variation.”
rgb
Recognised talbes of tidal periods usually run to 18.6 years I think. The direct input of tidal energy dispersed through frictional losses is small as you correctly point out. However, if there is inter-annual to decadal scale bulk displacement of water this could cause more energy to be captured from Mr Sun:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/07/proper-cherry-picking/#comment-1561992
There’s an interesting study here …
Greg says:
February 8, 2014 at 4:29 pm
“How about the 9.15 you actually found?”
9.15/9.06=1.009934 : within 1%
I don’t consider that ‘close’ enough and find it symptomatic that you first tried to compare with 9.1, not 9.15
Greg says:
February 8, 2014 at 4:25 pm
Greg, if you are talking about the link http://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/amplitude-modulation-triplets/ I thought that website was yours … as are all but one of the links. That one says nothing about a “modulation frequency” that is the average of a pair of frequencies.
I find nothing saying you can just average two frequencies and claim it’s a interference phenomenon.
I believe I read them all. They explained nothing. Not one of them talked about a “modulation frequency”. Plus … it’s all you. I asked specifically:
You go on to say:
No, that was my point. The 8.55 was simply my typo in writing it up, not a math mistake. If you use 8.85 for the calculations (as I actually did, despite the typo) and 9.3, you get 9.07, not 9.06 as you claimed. Here are the results from Excel:
You’d do well to wait for the actual sunrise before you start crowing.
w.
“If you add the amplitudes you get periods 8.84 and 9.29 [harmonic mean 9.06, but still not your 9.15].”
Scafetta found 9.1 +/-0.1 . BEST estimated the spectral uncertainty at +/-0.4 which is probably rather pessimistic. Those figures are within about 0.5%. Periods close to this value are very common in many aspects of climate. The particular N.Atl cc N.Pacific example I cited is within 1%.
That’s going to drift into anti-phase after 50 x 9 year cycles. Not a worry in this context.
It is well within the accuracy of the data and the extraction method. If this was spectroscopy we would be looking a lot better than that to identify an element by atomic absorption but I think it’s good enough for SST data.
Willis Eschenbach says:
February 8, 2014 at 2:30 pm
“Richard, I don’t know of any lunar cycle with that periodicity. In fact, the lunar cycles only have approximate periodicity. For example, the tides kind of repeat after 18 years six months or so, but then they have a much closer repetition after 54+ years…..What this means is that after that 54-year period, the sun, moon, and earth are in a straight line (thus the eclipse) and the same spot on earth is directly under the sun … except of course, only approximately the same spot, but still quite close … and that’s why the tides repeat every 54+ years.”
Indeed. The only slight problem I have with that simple, near 60, cycle is that it is not divisible by 4.
Why 4? Because of Leap Years. You know, the time it takes for the Sun to be in the same position in the sky at the same place on Earth at the same time of year.
So a modulation of the 54 by the 4. Who knows. This all gets WAY too complicated.
Greg says:
February 8, 2014 at 4:57 pm
It is well within the accuracy of the data and the extraction method.
OK, if that floats your boat. More disturbing is the adding rather than multiplying the two variations. Why add?
lsvalgaard says:
February 8, 2014 at 4:10 pm
“The only way to be sure the code works is to expose it to scrutiny by other programmers.”
The only way to be sure code works is to write it in such a way that it CAN be exposed to other programmers!
Done a few code reviews in my time.
Just to remind people just how complicated the simple dance between the Moon and Earth is(without considering the Sun).
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/GravitationtidalcyclesfromWoodetal_zps27a493b4.gif
W. The link to Univ. NSW link explains the modulation and the envelop and gives plots to help visualise it. The maths is standard trig identities.
http://www.trans4mind.com/personal_development/mathematics/trigonometry/sumProductCosSin.htm
I explain the difference between modulation, superposition and beats in the text. The splitting of frequencies is basic AM radio stuff too.
lsvalgaard seems to agree about the maths he’s just questioning which case should be applied. I’ll try to get onto that next.
rgbatduke says:
February 8, 2014 at 4:16 pm
“Tides are not gravity per se.”
Picky. Picky. Tides are the effect of the gravitational fields that other bodies exert on the Earth, its water and atmosphere.
There is more to it than just vertical movement as well. There is a horizontal vector (tangential to the surface if you will) that may well be of importance coming as it does between 45 and 60 degrees to the orbital plane.
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/Tidalgravityfield_zpsab34f0f0.png
I believe that this lateral component is often overlooked.
And where are the choke points for North-South ocean flows in the Northern Hemisphere? Where do the Polar and Ferrel Cells meet?
If we were talking about the bodies being directly overhead then it would be easy. But they are at quite an angle to Equator so all is not that simple.
Gareth Phillips says:
February 7, 2014 at 8:29 am
When has “The Climate” NOT been “Changing”? Never. Did Humans ’cause’ that? If Humans didn’t cause the millenia of ongoing variabilityu, how can they possibly hope to stop it?
Thinking that Human CO2 emissions significantly impact climate is akin to thinking that Human dandruff is the source of the Rivers’ Silt.
@ Willis: OK I knew the detection accuracy was not high and there was not a perfect match, so I just did a quick calculation. Lets use some more accurate figures:
18.631/2 X 8.852591 => 9.078
So I shall now refer to this as 9.08. years.
Add or modulate ?
The 8.852591 y cycle is the precession , ie it’s the orientation not the amplitude variation. There is a roughly 6 monthly variation in the amplitude of the perigee/apogee difference. That could be taken as modulating the other effect. If there was an amplitude variation of 8.85 y I would agree about multiplying the two.
The apside cycle is a separate effect to the combination of declination angle and solar tide that leads to 18.626 and hence 9.315 years, which is why I was using superpostition.
There does not seem to be enough resolution in the data to separate the two peaks. Here’s a wider scale plot of the same spectrum (NB peak annotations are approximate).
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=754
Boat floating.
You’ve picked on 9.15 which I said was “typical”. That is based on Scafetta, BEST and a variety of plots I’ve done. It was a rough value for a broad discussion answering Richard’s question on the possible origin of 60 years. It was not intended as a precisely reported result.
The peak I found in cross-correlation of N.Atl and N.Pac was 9.05.
The detected peak could be precisely 9.08 to within the expected accuracy. Some small poorly resolved noise peak close by would be enough to shift the centre of the measured peak. Even if the result was kind enough to be closer to 9.08 it would not be any more certain with this same data and method. This is just exploration but that’s near enough to merit a closer look.
Greg says:
February 8, 2014 at 6:40 pm
There is a roughly 6 monthly variation in the amplitude of the perigee/apogee difference. That could be taken as modulating the other effect. If there was an amplitude variation of 8.85 y I would agree about multiplying the two.
Earlier you were harping on the 40% difference in amplitude, so one may be excused for assuming that you meant amplitude.
The apside cycle is a separate effect
But it would seem to be controlling the amplitude so amplitude modulation would seem to be natural. May I suggest that your reason for not adopting that physical view is simply that it does not give you the peak you want.
You’ve picked on 9.15
I simply got your 9.15 from your plot: http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=121
Perhaps I should have said 9.14767, but in keeping with normal practice of not quoting more decimals than are justified, I rounded to 9.15, perhaps that number is too rough and all we can say that it may be some number in the 8.9 to 9.4 range.
The real problem may simply be that you have not identified any plausible mechanism other than something that ‘could’ be, ‘might be’, etc happening. This is apart from all the other arguments about the response time being much longer than the solar cycle.
Greg says:
February 8, 2014 at 6:40 pm
This is just exploration but that’s near enough to merit a closer look.
is a far cry from the certainty you displayed in:
Greg Goodman says:
February 8, 2014 at 2:04 am
FWIW , here is the spectrum of HadCruft4 that I did some time ago.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=121
Main peak is lunar not SSN
lsvalgaard says: “I simply got your 9.15 from your plot: http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=121”
OK , since you did not say what you were referring to I assumed that you had got that figure from the most recent comments in this discussion. This thread started about HadCruft4 so that fair enough but a bit more clarity would help avoid talking at cross purposes.
I have already posted a link to my article that notes how Hadley processing distorts the circa 9 year peak. In view of the BEST paper it may be the land component that boosts it back up. I also said why I don’t think a hybrid dataset is appropriate for calorimetry. That is why I prefer to use ICOADS SST for spectral investigation.
I did the NH cross-correlation to take an alternative look at the BEST result that did a similar thing with AMO and PDO. Since PDO is a derivative index that in part itself includes Atlantic SST, I think my use of ex-tropical N.Pac SST is probably more reliable and avoids the risk of inducing a false correlation.
I also regard it as more reliable than using over processed data like hadSST and crufTEM4 mixed into a land-sea hybrid that involves different heat capacity and other confounding factors.
It does, however, seems clear there is a strong peak around 9.1 years +/- 0.1 , which IIRC was Scafetta’s result for lunar influence derived from JPL ephemeris data. That was an empirical result without mechanism but clearly links this period to lunar influence.
The harmonic mean may well explain the origin:
18.631/2 X 8.852591 => 9.078
Detecting a notable peak at 9.05 in Atlantic-Pacific NH SST cross-correlation links this period to the surface temperature record. Hence my conclusion that this is a lunar signal not solar.
“This is apart from all the other arguments about the response time being much longer than the solar cycle.”
I did not say it _was_ much longer. I simply noted that your use of power as a “shorthand” for its time integral , energy, was only applicable IF the system equilibrated to changes in radiative forcing in a time much shorter than a solar cycle and without establishing that, expecting a direct correlation of surface temp and SSN was erroneous.
Unless I missed something you seem to have dropped that discussion.
That has little to do with bulk displacement of heat energy by long term tides.
lsvalgaard says: “Earlier you were harping on the 40% difference in amplitude, so one may be excused for assuming that you meant amplitude.
>> The apside cycle is a separate effect
But it would seem to be controlling the amplitude so amplitude modulation would seem to be natural. May I suggest that your reason for not adopting that physical view is simply that it does not give you the peak you want.”
If you can avoid trolling with language like “harping on”, you are indeed ‘excused’. That is why I provided more information about the nature of the anomalistic cycle in order that you should be better informed. Your incorrect statement saying this should be modulation was reasonable if you thought the 8.85y was the 40% variation.
The point about 40% _monthly_ variation due to eccentricity is that it is a large effect and its _orientation_ is thus relevant.
>> “May I suggest that your reason for not adopting that physical view is simply that it does not give you the peak you want.”
I don’t ‘adopt’ it because I do not see an obvious reason that the _orientation_ would modulate the lunar declination – solar alignment. In the absence of any reason to suggest modulation I have to assume it’s additive. I agreed it would make sense for the circa 6 mo variation in amplitude to cause modulation.
I am not “wanting” a peak , I am looking for a physical explanation for an observation.
Observe, analyse , explain.
Clearly the next step is to look for a direct physical mechanism and try to understand the geographical phase relationships. The Atlantic-Pacific cross-correlation was part of that process.
Way up thread Richard made this remark
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/07/proper-cherry-picking/#comment-1561235
The levels as Richard observed were a swampy hide out for Alfred the Great and many of the village place names have a historical significance pointing to their background such as ‘Great island.’
The Dutch were largely responsible for draining the land several hundred years ago.
Over the last decade parts of the Somerset levels have been deliberately neglected by a policy of reducing dredging, ditching and curtailing general maintenance and pumping. This was quite deliberate policy from the head of the EA responding to environmental pressures from the Government and the EU.
It was known several years ago that this policy would cause problems and the chickens have come home to roost. . I doubt that the levels would have been flooded to anything like the extent we see today if action had been taken although some parts will always be vulnerable and cannot reasonably always be protected
tonyb
Greg Goodman says:
February 9, 2014 at 1:59 am
I simply noted that your use of power as a “shorthand” for its time integral , energy
Since energy = power * (area*time) the power is a convenient shorthand for the energy received each second and is what is normally used [e.g. http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/ ]. I have not seen papers that discuss the climate in terms of the time integral of the power. And, this is my point: the original post claims that there are pulses of solar activity matching pulses of temperature. So, you are just back to nitpicking.
Greg Goodman says:
February 9, 2014 at 2:35 am
In the absence of any reason to suggest modulation I have to assume it’s additive
In the absence of any reason to suggest it is additive one have to assume it is multiplicative. You see, you have not connected the dots as to how the two effects might cooperate.
Recognised talbes of tidal periods usually run to 18.6 years I think. The direct input of tidal energy dispersed through frictional losses is small as you correctly point out. However, if there is inter-annual to decadal scale bulk displacement of water this could cause more energy to be captured from Mr Sun:
Sure, it could. Although I’ve heard more plausible arguments suggesting that atmospheric tides can modulate the tropospheric height, hence the DALR, hence the GHE. Either way, MORE plausible is still far from convincing. It’s just like sunspots/solar activity. There are tantalizing hints of correlation, if you pick the interval to look at and ignore the places where a mental linear model doesn’t work. OTOH, if you look at all of the data and try to establish a simple linear one-parameter model effect it is far from compelling.
None of which rules out nonlinear multivariate or differential effects, but looking for that degree of complexity is difficult without some specific model to motivate it and nobody seems to discuss them much in climate science outside of throwing a boatload of more or less linear stuff into a GCM and letting it stir the pot. Maybe if one puts solar activity on one axis, the ENSO index on another axis, your tidal activity voodoo on yet another axis, and then plots the time derivative of GASTA on still another axis, it loops around in a beautiful coherent Poincare cycle trajectory that slowly varies in a predictable way with CO_2 concentration. Unless and until somebody goes positively crazy with cone-head quantities of data, some truly excellent analytic tools, and nothing but time on their hands, we may never know. Especially when “coherence” might emerge from phenomena that in projection look like ill-correlated noise only when one gets up to ten dimensions. Or twenty. We just don’t know.
IMO a lot of the climate data probably could be understood in terms of local attractors and/or Hurst-Kolmogorov statistics — locally stable climate (that is, macroscopic and decadal in scope) global states where the climate whirls around in some sort of demented set of epicycles — diurnal epicycles, annual epicycles, solar cycle epicycles, hell, why not, tidal epicycles, multidecadal oscillation epicycles that are at once a semistable response to all of this cyclic time evolution with strong feedbacks and themselves epicyclic factors in the dynamics. Because the climate oscillates (not coherently, but as in is bound to around some sort of comparatively stationary set point) we know there are strong negative feedbacks that push it back towards the set point — if it gets “too warm” for the set point it cools, if it gets “too cool” for the set point it warms. The climate certainly is not an undirected random walk or we would cook or freeze in short order.
But the climate also clearly has a kind of “inertia” — once too much heating establishes a cooling mode, the cooling mode persists long enough to overshoot the set point, once it gets too cool and establishes a heating mode it lasts long enough to overshoot the other way. Sometimes — because these modes are themselves multivariate and subject to the whirling epicyclic evolution of their many components. Instead of getting a clean oscillation with a particularly clear fourier signal (outside of the obvious diurnal and seasonal signals for the purely periodic drivers) one gets chaos.
Underneath all of this, the locally stable climate states — the climate “attractors” as it were — are not really stable at all. They are only stable on a scale of decades to centuries, and may well be jinking around on even shorter time scales. If I understand the idea behind CAGW, it is that the steady addition of CO_2 is supposed to systematically tilt the “forces” that act on these attractors to make the set points move ever further in the warmer direction, and that as it does this tilting water vapor will chime in to amplify the tilt instead of doing the exact opposite — push it back — which is what one would expect purely on the basis of the overall semi-stability of the space of attractor set points visible in the climate record at various scales.
But sadly, we do not know anything at all about the factors and epicycles that determine the dynamics of the attractors themselves — we just pretend that we do when we build a simple linear model without even understanding the nature of the underlying macroscopic dynamics.
I’ll end my diatribe du jour with an analogy. My mentor in the general field of complex systems, Dr. Richard Palmer (who was once on the shortest list for the directorship of the Santa Fe institute before a series of strokes tragically affected his career) had an adage which was very useful to understand the motivation for the study of complex systems: More is Different.
This is clearly visible when one attempts to move from the microscale to the macroscale in physics. Microscopically everything is linear, reversible, time symmetric, deterministic (the latter in quantum mechanics only if one considers complete/closed systems, and irrelevant in chaotic classical mechanics where one cannot sufficiently precisely specify an initial state and hence true but irrelevant in both). Consideration of the fundamental interactions leads one to an understanding of how e.g. quarks combine to form nucleons, how nucleons combine to form more or less stable nuclei, how electrons bind to nuclei to form atoms, how atoms — now a set with its own rules for stability and dynamics that are in no way obviously linked to the “bare” laws of the symmetry broken field — combine to form molecules, how molecules — now with their own laws that make up an entire standalone science, “chemistry” — develop enough complexity that chemistry itself fractures into subsets each with its own UNIQUE set of rules plus rules for more general interactions, organic chemistry for molecules with carbon, the chemistry of ceramics, metals, semiconductors, acids, bases, how chemistry (apparently) self-organizes organic chemistry into organic BIO-chemistry where proteins and amino acids transform into self-replicating factories, are shaped by evolution (a whole new selection paradigm that is in no way relatable to e.g. electrodynamic theory) into life. Life has its own rules, and those rules look nothing at all like the rules of physics, chemistry, organic chemistry. In other directions, gravity assembles atoms and molecules into larger bodies, heating them as they fall together, until some of the largest bodies “ignite” with the strong nuclear force of fusion and become enormously complex objects forging the heavier atoms (the picture above was logical, not temporally ordered) and scattering them in supernovae to be re-forged into smaller bodies that follow complex orbits around the larger bodies and develop surface interfaces with sufficient chemistry to permit the growth of complexity with its own rules leading to life. Stars have numerous rules of their own, rules that can in some sense be related to understood physics and chemistry but nevertheless rules for macroscopic structures that are “discrete” — not really thought of in terms of the individual rules and motions of their enormous numbers of constituent parts.
In physics, one generally knows better than to try to understand Shakespeare by considering the unified field applied to the 10 to the thirty-something elementary particles (at least) that make up the brain, not including the massless particles of the field itself that have no meaningful count. Or one should. The physics of the dozens of layers of meta-structure between the unified field simply cannot be traced quantitatively through the layers except by developing rules for the many intermediate layers by a mix of observation and induction. That is, we do well to understand the physics of each transition from one layer to the next, and perhaps to be able to do at least some computations in both worlds to give ourselves comfort that our hierarchical decomposition is sound. Hence it is lovely to be able to use quantum chemistry to solve for the chemical laws that govern at least simple molecules and to help us understand particular features of the internal structure and dynamics of more complex molecules even though we know that it would be silly to try to solve a Schrodinger equation for the dynamics of a neuron, or for hemoglobin in an electrolyte water-based fluid. It’s nice to be able to derive the ideal gas law and the VanderWaals gas law from comparatively simple principles even though real gases often do not fit either one perfectly, especially near phase transitions or when lots of chemical stuff is going on. We end up with a decent bridge of verified consistency from the microscale where things are simple and comparatively easy to understand and compute (well, ok, maybe not THAT easy) to the semantic content of the Gettysburg Address, with only a few “gaps” that are difficult to bride or at best still rather speculative.
Consider, then, what we are trying to do in climate science. Consider, in fact, GCMs — an effort to compute what the climate will do based on a meso-scale microdynamic model. By that I mean that we take the planet and chop its surface and atmosphere and some depth of the ocean into chunks, establish what we hope are accurate physics-based rules for the time evolution of each chunk based on its own state, its interaction with the surrounding chunks, and with various external forces (or “forcings” in context). The rules of this sort of game are actually known to us from experience in other contexts.
We do not really know the dynamics of the quasiparticles of the climate system. By this I mean that the climate system and its drivers have numerous named structures, both specific large scale structures and generic small scale structures, that have sufficient spatiotemporal coherence that we can observe them and give them names: Thunderstorms, tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, high pressure centers, low pressure centers, waves, ridges, Hadley cells, the jet stream, troposphere, stratosphere, the Gulf stream, the global thermohaline circulation, ENSO, monsoon, cumulus clouds, Santa Ana winds, the Sun, solar cycles, elliptical orbits. All of these objects mutually conspire in one fundamental process — the transport of nuclear energy released in the heart of the sun 100,000 years ago (or so) to deep space through the tiny solid angle subtended by the planet Earth. That’s it. Energy from the sun arrives on Earth, hangs out for a while, and then continues on its merry way to infinity and beyond, to entropic oblivion. Our entire climate and life itself is nothing but self-organized structure involved in dissipating energy in an open system.
I’m a quasiparticle in the climate system. So are you. The entire climate debate is about quasiparticles in the climate system inventing new high level rules for quasiparticle activity that might or might not impact the transfer efficiency of the entire system (or consideration of the possibility that quasiparticle dynamics to date has already affected it and will continue to affect it).
In simulations of complex systems, if the resolution of the simulation is not sufficient to represent the important quasiparticles of the system, the simulations often fail, even simulations of far simpler systems than the climate. We can easily understand why, of course. You cannot describe a laser in terms of blackbody radiation — the latter is all completely understandable and physically correct in context, but it makes certain assumptions in its averaging that are, in fact, not well represented by all kinds of optical phenomena, especially things like lasers that are monochromatic, coherent, and not even vaguely “thermal”.
Understanding the evolution of a fluid system in closed container with convection from conduction with at most one convective roll, through a state with numerous stable convective rolls (determined non-uniquely by boundary conditions, the degree of forcing, and non-Markovian time evolution from various microscopic nucleations), to a fully turbulent state by solving microscopic Navier-Stokes equations will not work if one restricts the granularity of the spatial decomposition to be commensurate with the sizes of the intermediate convective rolls. It will not deterministically tell you what a real system will do even if it is remarkably fine grained — the specific patterns of convective rolls that emerge as being stable depend in some detail on how the system is nucleated, how the structures emerge from the initial INTERNAL motions of the system, and in numerous critical regions the apparent “stability” of the quasiparticle structure is, well, not. Stable. Right up to where turbulence and true chaos emerge, where the quasiparticles of one domain break down and are replaced by turbulent rolls, by eddies on all length scales jostling and bouncing off of one another, forming and dissipating as they help carry energy from one place to another in the service of Entropy.
GCMs use cells that are not uniform in area — because the writers of the GCMs are (I have to suppose) too lazy to implement a rescalable unbiased e.g. icosahedral tiling of the sphere, they use the “easy” latitude/longitude decomposition with cells determined as integer numbers of degrees in a coordinate system with a horrendous polar-singular Jacobean. This undersamples the equator and oversamples the high latitudes (and sometimes they heuristically correct for this, a bit). It means that cells are nearly square near the equator and wedge shaped near the poles. IIRC, there are few or no GCMs with resolution less than 1 degree, so equatorial cells are order of 70 miles to the side or larger. The motivation for using a lat/long grid is that rectilinear cells are easy to loop over and write nearest neighbor dynamics for. This presumes that one can correct for the cell distortions due to the Jacobean in a PDE solution based on a rectangular grid more easily than one can develop rescalable icosahedral routines for solving partial differential equations on a non-rectangular grid. GCMs by their nature cannot, therefore, resolve quasiparticle structures less than several grid cells in size — to do a centered circulation for example would require at least 9 cells in a 3×3 grid — a central “defect” cell and eight bordering cells such that the integral of the “wind velocity” assigned to the cell around the loop of cells is nonzero. That is a unit order of 200 miles square in the tropics and 200 miles not so square elsewhere.
200 miles, of course, is the order of the size of large scale weather quasiparticles — hurricanes, for example. It is completely blind to most mundane thunderstorms, all tornadoes, and even simple local things like a daily/cyclic updraft over a farmer’s plowed field and an accompanying downdraft over a nearby cold lake, or the effect of hills and valleys. The coastal microclimates of e.g. California are lost to it — smeared out so that land that is basically hot desert may be considered to be nicely damp and temperature in temperature because the west slope of a mountain range through a cell is waterlogged and cool where the east slope is hot and dry. North Carolina has four or five distinct named microclimates (all basically climate “quasiparticles) between the mountains and the coast. The coast itself is obviously a coastal microclimate, but in NC the coast is penetrated by enormous sounds and broad rivers so that a truly complex modulation of temperatures and weather by water occurs in almost a fractal way as one moves inland. Then there are the sandhills — so named because the soil is very sandy with different water-retention and evaporation properties — which have a unique pattern of thunderstorms and quite distinct weather from the piedmont, where I live (we still sometimes get weather with sandhills-like patterns even though our soil is basically hardpack clay under a thin layer of loam) up to the actual rocky mountains to the north and west, with a gradual ascension in height, reduction of surface water flow, and with more and more rock replacing the clay. Greensboro has a noticeably different climate than Durham, Asheville a very different climate than Durham. All of this complexity has to be reduced to around five cells across, around two or three cells deep, and the models AFAIK do not contain parameters to correct for things like surface area occupied by lakes and waterways, water retention of the soil, rock versus clay versus sand. They at best have some sort of mean height and local albedo
Is it any surprise, really, that Pielke Sr. reports that GCMs do terribly at representing rainfall patterns? Those things depend on the ignored features of the terrain at a spatial resolution well beneath what the models can handle, whether or not the cells themselves are distorting outcomes along with their shape. And then there is the vertical decomposition of the atmosphere above each cell, and the vertical decomposition (if any) of the ocean below all of the cells that cover some 70% of the Earth. Do these cells matter? ENSO says that they do, they matter very much, they matter so much that models that cannot replicate ENSO haven’t got a prayer of tracking the actual climate and this is just one complex transport quasiparticle/structure in the system where heat flows in one place, is stored at depth in the ocean, is laterally transported as much as thousands of miles, and then re-emerges as hot surface water, is transported rapidly up to the stratosphere, and then spreads out globally to substantially alter the entire quasiparticle pattern of heating and cooling and rainfall and drought everywhere for an immediate effect lasting years. A sufficiently strong ENSO can clearly shift the attractors of the climate system, effectively reset the quasi-stable set point of the system, and influence the climate on a multidecadal time scale even across multiple El Nino and La Nina events.
Until we understand the scale and importance of the many, many quasiparticles in the self-organized system — quasiparticles that are driven by dissipation, that generally grow and become more efficient when fed energy — we are going to have a hard time even knowing how to build a functional GCM. It might involve (for example) using a variable resolution icosahedral grid where grid cells are decorated with another five or six or ten parameters that have (in aggregate, over time) non-negligible impacts on the time evolution of both weather and climate. It might require the insertion of quasiparticle time evolution rules to replace or correct supposedly “physics based” cell microdynamics — we have a hard time predicting the time evolution of hurricanes, for example, for exactly this sort of reason — tiny fluctuations (noise at the grid level) make microscopic/ensemble methods “blur” past a certain point until their predictions are no longer useful, where semi-heuristic rules involving macro-scale structures like ridges and high and low pressure centers and atmospheric shear might do better, and where most hurricane predictions rely on a mix of both with a touch of human judgement based on experience as to what sorts of errors both methods are prone to.
We can do that with hurricanes, but how can we do that with climate? Hurricanes spin a week, two weeks, and then are gone. The effect a hurricane has on the climate cannot be limited. The GCMs themselves produce a staggering range of possible output climates including some that are as cool or cooler than what we are experiencing from even smaller perturbations of initial conditions. It’s that damn butterfly in Brazil again, beating its wings and changing everything by far more than any simple heuristic rule can manage.
rgb
J.Herbst says
if this pattern repeats, then we will have 20 more years going down – more or less steep. About ten years of the 30 year down slope are already gone.
Henry says
looking at energy coming in
first table, maxima, here:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
we will have another 35 years or so before (global) cooling ends.
But where is J.Herbst? I have not seen any comment from him here in comments?
“Since energy = power * (area*time) the power is a convenient shorthand for the energy received each second and is what is normally used [e.g. http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/ ]. I have not seen papers that discuss the climate in terms of the time integral of the power. ”
I don’t see what you are pointing me to at SORCE. Incoming radiation is usually measured in W/m^2 or equivalent. A radiative flux which is instantaneous power not energy.
A watt is a joule per second so that is “the energy received each second “. It’s called power.
However, temperature is not power it is a measure of thermal energy so to relate incoming radiative power to a change in temperature you need to either look at dT/dt vs power or the temp vs integral of power in a trivial radiation hits blackbody kind of experiment. In the case of a complex system it will be a complex response with lags and a response function with feedbacks.
If you want to look for direct correlation to either suggest a solar linkage as OP (incorrectly) did or to refute similar by its absence you are in effect _assuming_ equilibrium is reached in a delay much shorter than the time-scale you are considering. ie there is negligible lag and the temp record represents the integrated response function.
If you shine a powerful lamp on a blackbody, its temperature will not be the instantaneous power output of the lamp that intersects the body. It will be the time integral of the incoming power minus some kind of plank neg. feedback as it warms.
If the target is 0.5g of aluminium foil painted black illuminated by a 500W lamp, you may be close to correlating instantaneous lamp power and temp of the body.
I don’t see Earth climate system conforming to the tin foil model. It seems you do. Maybe you could explain why.
Greg Goodman says:
February 9, 2014 at 8:16 am
I don’t see Earth climate system conforming to the tin foil model. It seems you do. Maybe you could explain why.
You are missing the whole point. A measure of the incoming energy is how much we get per second [and per square meter] thus the humble TSI is a good shorthand for the energy received. How that influences the climate is a complicated deal and is not what the issue is, although the author of the post thought there were a direct relationship become sunspots [TSI varies as they do] and temperature.
“…. thus the humble TSI is a good shorthand for the energy received. ”
No, the humble TSI is a proxy of the power, so its _integral_ is a measure of the energy received.
You can’t just slip “per unit time” in brackets like it doesn’t really matter. It’s the difference between a quantity and it’s integral
You are trying to say the abscissa is ” a measure of ” the area under the graph.
NO.
Greg Goodman says:
February 9, 2014 at 8:55 am
No, the humble TSI is a proxy of the power, so its _integral_ is a measure of the energy received.
TSI is a measure [not a proxy] of the energy we receive every second. YES.
lsvalgaard says:
“…. thus the humble TSI is a good shorthand for the energy received. ”
“TSI is a measure …. of the energy we receive every second. ”
So which is it ? Energy or power?
Greg Goodman says:
February 9, 2014 at 9:22 am
“thus the humble TSI is a good shorthand for the energy received. ” every second.
So which is it ? Energy or power?
TSI is a measure of the energy we receive every second, or which is the same ‘the power’.
The relevant physics is the Stefan–Boltzmann law which relates the power to the temperature.
Time to remove your foot from your mouth.
there is a variation within TSI
mainly to do with the E-UV
I figured that there must be a small window at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) that gets opened and closed a bit, every so often. Chemists know that a lot of incoming radiation is deflected to space by the ozone and the peroxides and nitrous oxides lying at the TOA. These chemicals are manufactured from the UV coming from the sun. Luckily we do have measurements on ozone, from stations in both hemispheres. I looked at these results. Incredibly, I found that ozone started going down around 1951 and started going up again in 1995, both on the NH and the SH. Percentage wise the increase in ozone in the SH since 1995 is much more spectacular.
HenryP says:
February 9, 2014 at 9:31 am
there is a variation within TSI mainly to do with the E-UV
No, not mainly. The variation of TSI measured in Watt/M^2 is much larger than that of EUV in the same unit.
lsvalgaard says:
TSI is a measure of the energy we receive every second, or which is the same ‘the power’.
Indeed, which is what I’ve been saying all along. So when you said :
“…. thus the humble TSI is a good shorthand for the energy received. ”
you were wrong. Hardly a “knit pick” you were fundamentally wrong.
Time to admit you were wrong.
But of course Stanford professors never do that do they? About as much chance as getting Happy Days Fonzie to say the word.
It’s unfortunate, your critical questions were a useful challenge initially.
Greg Goodman says:
February 9, 2014 at 9:45 am
Indeed, which is what I’ve been saying all along. So when you said :
“…. thus the humble TSI is a good shorthand for the energy received. ”
‘every second’ being understood as well as explicitly stated several times, I was fundamentally correct. You seem to agree with that, although you try to wiggle out of the box you put yourself in.
So now we are agreed that TSI [and it’s SSN proxy] are POWER terms, there would be no reason to expect surface temps [ a clumsy proxy for heat content ] to correlate directly with TSI.
Thus lack of such direct correlation is not an argument for refuting the presence of an effect unless we make some undeclared assumptions about the system response,
Which is where we were about a day and a half ago.
Greg Goodman says:
February 9, 2014 at 9:57 am
So now we are agreed that TSI [and it’s SSN proxy] are POWER terms, there would be no reason to expect surface temps [ a clumsy proxy for heat content ] to correlate directly with TSI.
As TSI is a measure of the energy we receive per second there are lots of good reasons to believe that surface temps [heat content] should correlate with that amount of energy going into the system every second.
Thus lack of such direct correlation is not an argument for refuting the presence of an effect unless we make some undeclared assumptions about the system response,
You make some undeclared assumptions about the system response when you claim that in spite of no correlation there still is an effect. And that is where we were and probably will still be going forward.
LS says
No, not mainly. The variation of TSI measured in Watt/M^2 is much larger than that of EUV in the same unit.
Henry says
the unit in W/m2 does not matter
The extra E-UV produces more ozone /peroxides/nitric oxides
which deflect more irradiation to space in stead of to earth (into the oceans)
HenryP says:
February 9, 2014 at 10:10 am
the unit in W/m2 does not matter
So you agree that you were wrong when you said that the variation in TSI has to do with EUV:
HenryP says:
February 9, 2014 at 9:31 am
there is a variation within TSI mainly to do with the E-UV
That is all.
HenryP says:
February 9, 2014 at 9:31 am
there is a variation within TSI mainly to do with the E-UV
What you meant to say was that the EUV varies with the sunspot number, so no reason to drag TSI into it in this regard.
lsvalgaard says:
February 9, 2014 at 10:05 am
“As TSI is a measure of the energy we receive per second there are lots of good reasons to believe that surface temps [heat content] should correlate with that amount of energy going into the system every second.”
So, when you put a pot of cold water on the stove to boil, it should start boiling right away?
“You make some undeclared assumptions about the system response when you claim that in spite of no correlation there still is an effect.”
Assumption of time lag and other diffusion dynamics are reasonable assumptions, and should be the default position from which to start.
HenryP, clouds do much more reflection than ozone and don’t need to be “seeded” by anything to do that job. But first things first. The null hypothesis has not been rejected by you. To reject it, regardless of your replacement theory, you must show that known intrinsic atmospheric/oceanic teleconnections that drive weather pattern changes (IE climate change) under short term and long term time spans does not observationally match and offers weak or no mechanistic explanations. Can you refute the null hypothesis without referring to your solar suggestion? My money would be on “no”.
Bart says:
February 9, 2014 at 10:29 am
So, when you put a pot of cold water on the stove to boil, it should start boiling right away?
I think you will have a hard time making that idea stick, but if you turn the heat on for a minute, off for minute, on for a minute, off for a minute, ad infinitum, and after a while measure the temperature every 5 seconds you will find that there is a one-minute variation of that temperature.
Assumption of time lag and other diffusion dynamics are reasonable assumptions, and should be the default position from which to start.
As long as the assumptions are not stated explicitly there is nothing to start from.
If solar enthusiasts are heralding their replacement theory as being right, I will throw out a specific challenge they should be able to easily handle. Refute intrinsic parameters in this article. Show me where their argument is weak.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.1204/pdf
lsvalgaard says: “You make some undeclared assumptions about the system response when you claim that in spite of no correlation there still is an effect. ”
I’m going the apply the Willis principal . If you want to criticise something I wrote , quote my words not your paraphrasing of what you chose to read into them.
Greg Goodman says:
February 9, 2014 at 10:51 am
I’m going the apply the Willis principal . If you want to criticise something I wrote , quote my words not your paraphrasing of what you chose to read into them.
I am not criticizing what you wrote, I am explaining in terms you might understand [by using words from your comment] how your ‘argument’ cuts both ways.
“I think you will have a hard time making that idea stick, but if you turn the heat on for a minute, off for minute, on for a minute, off for a minute, ad infinitum, and after a while measure the temperature every 5 seconds you will find that there is a one-minute variation of that temperature.”
1. OK, now would you expect that variation to be in phase with the switching of the heat source , or lagged?
2. If you cut the heat definitively, would you expect the temperature to drop to the temperature before heating : straight away, after one minute or after some considerably longer period that depended on the volume of water?
“you claim that in spite of no correlation there still is an effect. ” Quotation please.
Greg Goodman says:
February 9, 2014 at 11:03 am
“you claim that in spite of no correlation there still is an effect. ” Quotation please.
Quote: “lack of such direct correlation is not an argument for refuting the presence of an effect.”
Granted that the piling on of negatives [lack, not, refuting, unless] makes it hard to parse, but you seem to be saying that if there is no correlation there could still be an effect, that the lack of said correlation does not mean that there is no effect. That you say this implies [to me] that you believe there is an effect, otherwise your comment makes little sense, but you can clarify what you mean, if possible.
Greg Goodman says:
February 9, 2014 at 11:01 am
1. OK, now would you expect that variation to be in phase with the switching of the heat source , or lagged?
I expect that the moment I turn of the heat, the pot will begin to cool [no lag], and the moment I turn the heat back on, the pot will begin to warm.
2. If you cut the heat definitively,
Does not apply as for the pot analogy to make sense it must match the atmosphere heated by the Sun for billions of years in the past and for billions of years in the future.
Greg Goodman says:
February 9, 2014 at 11:03 am
Your argument is sound. You do not need to convince Leif, even if you could, and even if you did, he would never admit it.
Leif is not expert in frequency domain analysis, and his points on that front are meaningless. Best to just walk away.
Bart says:
February 9, 2014 at 11:32 am
Leif is not expert in frequency domain analysis
I am, on the other hand, an expert in the physics of the Sun and the Earth and Solar-Terrestrial Relationships.
Best to just walk away.
That might, indeed, be better for this whole thread.
lsvalgaard says:
February 9, 2014 at 11:36 am
“I am, on the other hand, an expert in the physics of the Sun and the Earth and Solar-Terrestrial Relationships.”
And, when you opine on topics within your expertise, I pay attention. When you go off on tangents into areas where you are clearly not exceptionally qualified, not so much. Your dispute with Greg Goodman, who is well qualified within his area of expertise, is one such instance.
Quote: “lack of such direct correlation is not an argument for refuting the presence of an effect.”
OK so you’ve now realised what I did say was not the same as you reported. It’s not “piling on” , it’s mathematical logic. Lack of correlation is not a sufficient condition to preclude the presence of an effect.
1. The rise will likely be close to 1-exp and the cooling will be like exp decay. In the conditions of a large mass and little losses it will be nearly a triangular ramp. That will mean the response is 90 degrees out of phase with the timing of the heating cycle. Will losses there will be a phase lag of less the 90.
And I’m sure professor that you already know why and don’t need to waste my time explaining. It’s because it is the _integral_ of heat input. In the lossy case an exponentially weighted integral.
2. If you cut the heat definitively,
Does not apply as for the pot analogy to make sense it must match the atmosphere heated by the Sun for billions of years in the past and for billions of years in the future.
OK so you want your pot to be oscillating around a dynamic equilibrium state. That’s fine.
So let’s modify (2) into cutting the heat to 1/3 the power with the same duty cycle. Would you expect it to establish a new dynamic equilibrium level : straight away; after one cycle or after some period of time that depended upon the mass of water in the pot. ?
Bart says:
February 9, 2014 at 11:48 am
Your dispute with Greg Goodman, who is well qualified within his area of expertise, is one such instance.
As with you, to a guy with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The issue is whether his [or yours] expertise is applicable to the system at hand. And it clearly is not.
Greg Goodman says:
February 9, 2014 at 11:49 am
Lack of correlation is not a sufficient condition to preclude the presence of an effect.
You are [according to Bart] an expert of cause and effect. I did not paraphrase you, but used words you might understand to explain that lack of correlation is not indicative of an effect [effect being defined as an observable being correlated]. I would rather put it like this: correlation is a necessary condition for an effect, but is not sufficient for a causal effect.
That will mean the response is 90 degrees out of phase with the timing of the heating cycle.
I think you have never tried to heat a pot. When heating stops, warming stops and cooling starts. When heating starts, cooling stops and warming starts again. There is no lag. The obvious assumption [and one that likely make the analogy meaningless] is that the pot in very thin in the vertical direction.
2. If you cut the heat definitively,
Does not apply as for the pot analogy to make sense it must match the atmosphere heated by the Sun for billions of years in the past and for billions of years in the future.
Gods, I don’t know if I want to put my nose in the middle of this, but since a lot of this is nit-picking perhaps I can escape with just pointing it out or trying to make a statement everybody can agree on.
a) The Earth is an open system, in approximate thermodynamic balance — not equilibrium — between a hot sun and cold outer space.
b) TSI is a measure of the power received from the sun. In any sort of quasi-equilibrium state, power in from the sun is balanced by power lost to outer space, and naively the rate of power loss to outer space should be monotonically related to the temperature. However, the system is really never in that sort of equilibrium, which is why temperatures actually countervary with actual top of atmosphere insolation, which is the relevant power (variation in the solar constant being an order of magnitude smaller, IIRC).
c) The Earth can hardly be respresented by a simple linear (e.g. capacitance) model — a single layer model like that presented in Grant Petty’s book. Or rather, it can, but if it is the agreement between the model and reality is going to be extremely poor. The effects of noise and internal variability are at least commensurate historically with any systematic variability due to changes in TSI if not one or more or orders of magnitude greater. True, integration over time can turn a small change into a large temperature difference but only in a way that depends on many, many negected details of the model system.
d) Comparison with things like boiling water on a stove or heating a house in winter both are and are not relevant. In order to determine the time constants of any sort of variation one has to have a knowledge of things like heat capacity, whether or not the variation in input energy alters convective patterns discretely — even the water on the stove can have nonlinear transitional behavior that is counterintuitive when one changes the driving temperature difference. Then there is latent heat and heat capacity, where the temperature becomes more or less constant independent of short-timescale variation of the heat source once it is boiling. It doesn’t do anyone any service to oversimplify this to make a point, either way.
None of this is attempting to weigh in on whether or not solar activity is a good proxy for climate. I think Lief’s remarks there are already pretty much on the money, and quibbling over TSI being energy or power is only relevant if one can somehow show that the forcing involved (either way) is sufficient to explain some gross feature of climate evolution. By itself there is nothing like a convincing correlation between solar state and climate, but solar state might be a co-factor in more complex processes. Might be being the important phrase here, with the burden of proof very much on anyone wishing to assert that it is.
Is that fair enough?
rgb
rgbatduke says:
February 9, 2014 at 12:23 pm
“The Earth can hardly be respresented by a simple linear (e.g. capacitance) model…”
Probably, but it is a useful analogy nevertheless to make qualitative assessment of what is possible.
“Might be being the important phrase here, with the burden of proof very much on anyone wishing to assert that it is.”
The burden of proof is on the other side. The bottom line is that failing to find a direct 0th order correlation between temperature and TSI does not establish that there is no cause and effect relationship.
I could add to (1) that with a very small mass and large losses the temperature would rapidly reach a maximum after each change in heat power input and the phase lag would be small but non zero. That is similar to the 0.5g of Al example I used earlier.
In this new case there would be a strong correlation. In the case of the large mass and triangular form and 90 degree phase lag, the correlation would be near zero.
However, in the latter case dT/dt would be near to a square wave and would be nearly in phase with the power cycle and show strong correlation.
The more general situation, in between the two extremes, will be intermediate responses with varying degrees of correlation to both the power input and its integral. and various phase lags.
So to relate this to TSI, the expected response time and phase lag depends upon the heat capacity of the “pot” . In reality there will be several such reservoirs with different connectivity. hence different time constants and complicated by feedbacks possibly more complex than the radiative and evaporative losses from the pot.
Then there’s the question of the correlation being destroyed by a near frequency (like the 9.x year cycle) even if there is a direct SSN in-phase signal.
In conclusion:
So the absence of direct correlation result is not much help since it does not preclude a large capacity system with a slow response approaching quadrature with the driver or the correlation being masked by other variables.
Which is why I said:
Quote: “lack of such direct correlation is not an argument for refuting the presence of an effect.”
Why it takes over a day to explain basics like that to professor of solar physics is just another of those things to “reflect on” , I guess.
RGB, thanks for the input.
Yes its complicated. A clear correlation would be convincing but lack of one is not sufficient to be convincing evidence of a negative.
In terms of TOA an imbalance of power measurements needs to be integrated over time to produce an _energy_ imbalance. And that is what would lead to a change in temperature.
I don’t think it is knit picking (and was not intended to be ) to use the correct terms in science.
Differential calculus probably would not exist if they were interchangeable.
Adding to what
rgbatduke says at:
February 9, 2014 at 12:23 pm (speaking to the readers at large, but most specifically to)
Greg Goodman says:
February 9, 2014 at 11:49 am (as he continues his ‘discussion” with)
lsvalgaard says:
February 9, 2014 at 11:36 am (and several other replies above)
Both of you are correct. Please continue, but note that you both must address the difference between:
A (possible) symptom of heat (is the number of sunspots actually related to the levels of TSI being received here on earth), or are sunspots only a (in phase/out-of-phase/in-a-different-phase-completely) symptom of whatever solar currents/fields/cycles are (perhaps) also changing TSI over time,
or sunspots not affecting TSI over time? (The latter appears to be Leif’s position.)
Lief’s earlier statements are that TSI IS directly related to solar fusion levels, but that those 10^36 fusion events creating today’s “total heat output” from the sun happened many hundreds of thousands of years past, and thus, whatever changes in TSI are measured on a daily/weekly/monthly basis have been blended over those tens of thousands of years, and are thus NOT proportional to the nbr of sunspots being observed on a day-to-day basis.
To illustrate using your earlier example up-thread of the the water pot being heated by a cycling on-off heater switch. If that switch on-off cycle is changing heat inputs substantially below the thermal capacity of the water+pot+heating coil thermal mass, you can never measure the theoretical “change” in temperature of the water by a thermometer in the water. Further, if you used a IR thermometer “capable of “instantaneous” detecting the change in the temperature of the pot outside the water (and much closer to the change in the heat input to the coil) you’d STILL never be able to detect the change in heat input. The coil would change temperature in close relation to the electric on-off current, but it too would have a distinct thermal lag, and would “never” cool down to room temperature in any realistic case. Further, if the water were changing state, neither the pot nor the water would change temperature: both would stay proportional to 100 C (212 F), NOT to the changing (but hotter) electric coil below the pot.
So, who is “right”? Well, both of you. At different times of the month.
Look at real-world thermal delays:
During a solar eclipse, the air temperature drops within minutes of the loss of sunlit heating. That IS the actual thermal lag. Of air, at one spot.
But, over a day’s times, the earth’s overall air temperature lags sunlight peak about 2 hours in the afternoon since the entire earth surface at that spot holds heat, and releases heat far slower than does air.
The coldest part of the day, however, is NOT 2 hours after sunset, but about 2 hours before sunrise. Again, NOT air-delay, not surface heat up delay either.
But, over a year’s time, the coldest months (Northern hemisphere) are late January – early February, two months after the minimum light is received in late December. The hottest months are July-August, two months after the solar maximum.
For some reason – yet unknown – the earth’s climate seems to show a 1000 year cycle, a 200 year cycle, and a shorter 60-68 year cycle all on top of each other. Do any one (or all of them?) relate to any solar cycle? Nothing seems obvious at this point, but, then again, which solar fusion or solar current/magnetic cyclical change is the “proper” one affecting the earth’s temperature 2000-2015?
Thus, you need to use any and all of these delays to make your points. Not a mythical pot on a mythical stove.
Bart says:
February 9, 2014 at 12:29 pm
The burden of proof is on the other side. The bottom line is that failing to find a direct 0th order correlation between temperature and TSI does not establish that there is no cause and effect relationship.
Correlation is a necessary but not sufficient for causal relationship. If the cause does not give rise to an effect that is observed, then there is no relationship.
Greg Goodman says:
February 9, 2014 at 12:30 pm
Why it takes over a day to explain basics like that
Because your ideas do not hold. You are arguing that if I put my finger in hot water and I find that it is too hot [my finger warms up] causing me to take my finger out of the water, my finger would still continue to warm up.
Greg Goodman says:
February 9, 2014 at 12:36 pm
I don’t think it is nitpicking (and was not intended to be ) to use the correct terms in science.
I have tried to make you do that for some time now. TSI is a measure of the energy we put into the system every second.
RACookPE1978 says:
February 9, 2014 at 12:41 pm
Leif’s earlier statements are that TSI IS directly related to solar fusion levels, but that fusion creating today’s “total heat output” from the sun happened many hundreds of thousands of years past, and thus, whatever changes in TSI are measured on a daily/weekly/monthly basis have been blended over those tens of thousands of years, and are thus NOT proportional to the nbr of sunspots being observed on a day-to-day basis.
This is correct, but on top of that very steady energy flux there is a tiny [much smaller than 1 percent] variation in TSI caused by magnetic effects on the surface [more magnetism = more energy output] and that variation is proportional to the number of sunspots.
lsvalgaard says:
February 9, 2014 at 12:42 pm
Your entire post here should be embarrassing to you, but it won’t be. Not worth my time.
Bart says:
February 9, 2014 at 12:51 pm
Your entire post here should be embarrassing to you, but it won’t be. Not worth my time.
Perhaps it would be worth your time to learn something about energy inputs to systems [and pots]:
http://www.ahsd.org/science/siwak/chem1H/Chapter5/ChemQuest5Answers.pdf
It is elementary enough that it should not cause you problems.
rgbatduke says:
February 9, 2014 at 12:23 pm
Thank you for your comment. It is unfortunate as we nit-pick analogies and similes and simple differences, that each of the nits we are attempting to “analice” move around and multiply so quickly in so many different directions. 8<)
Certainly a single capacitor model is dead wrong and very misleading.
Rather, would we not have to use a nested capacitor model, each capacitor in the nest charging or discharging proportional to the difference in charge (temperature) to its neighbors, charging and discharging at different rates through different resistors in each connection in and out of each node, charging and discharging at different rates proportional to the contact area, contact method, weight and thermal capacity of each surface on earth?
Sure the top-of-atmosphere heat input would vary near-instantaneously as TOA varies over the year from 1314 up to 1408 watts/m^2, but every measured response from there until doomsday would have a different response time. Air temperature, water temperature (at the equator, half-way up the coastal currents, at the top of the Gulf Stream or Japanese current, down the west coast, across the pacific, around the Antarctic continent …. Then further delays down into the deep currents at the top of water, deep beneath, then in the rising/mixing zones.)
Throw in land delays, sea ice and land ice, and lake water delays, inland sea delays (Mediterranean for example).
RGB : “… solar state might be a co-factor in more complex processes. Might be being the important phrase here, with the burden of proof very much on anyone wishing to assert that it is.”
I’ve already stated I would not chose a land-sea hybrid dataset for this but since that is what was under discussion I linked the power spectrum of hadcrut4:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=121
In view of the attenuation of dT/dt the circa 21 signal looks quite strong.
Greg says:
February 8, 2014 at 6:40 pm
So what? The Saros cycle is not 18.631 years in any case … according to NASA, its 18 years, 10.82 days, or 18.03 years, so you can toss out your whole equation …
w.
PS—You’ve never provided any citation for your claim that there is an “interference frequency” at the average of the frequencies of two signals …
LS: “I have tried to make you do that for some time now. TSI is a measure of the energy we put into the system every second.”
Yes and we have a “shortcut” for that, the correct term is …. power.
Willis: PS—You’ve never provided any citation for your claim that there is an “interference frequency” at the average of the frequencies of two signals …
I did provide you with a link to the trig and added it to the “triplets” page as a ref.
Addition of two cosines is mathematically INDENTICAL to a modulation. The modulation freq is half the difference and the “modulee” or “carrier” in radio terminology is half the sum ( AKA the average).
“…so you can toss out your whole equation …”
The Day paper you linked to above uses 18.6 as did Keeling and Whorf. Perhaps you could explain where they are going wrong.
Bart says:
February 9, 2014 at 12:29 pm
So … you say that if Greg claims that the sun is affecting the climate, the burden of proof is on Leif to show that it DOESN’T affect the climate?
Sorry, but that’s blaming the victim … if Greg wants to assert that the sun affects the climate, he has to provide a) a hypothesis, and b) the evidence to back it up. So far he’s done neither. Waving his hands at various numbers and beat frequencies doesn’t do it. The burden is on Greg to provide such a hypothesis and such data.
And of course, once Greg does actually come up with a hypothesis and supporting data, as you point out, THEN it will be up to us to falsify it … but since to date he has not proposed such a hypothesis, there’s no burden on anyone.
If he does so, of course, at that point you would be 100% correct that “failing to find a direct 0th order correlation between temperature and TSI does not establish that there is no cause and effect relationship.”
However, the fact that in general scientists have failed to find it ANY statistically significant relationship of ANY kind between TSI and temperature, or between sunspots and temperature, despite people searching for hundreds of years to try to find one, certainly should give you and Greg pause in your certainty …
w.
Seriously Willis, before getting so strident and accusative, try reading up a bit. I’ve given a couple pointers and I’m sure you find your way to wikipedia without my help.
There’s plenty to keep you entertained if you lookup “amplitude modulation” “sidebands” and in acoustics “beats” is the same thing rectified. This is not some kind fo Tallbloke homespun numerology, it’s basic physics.
Greg Goodman says:February 9, 2014 at 1:46 pm
You’re asking the wrong guy. I pointed you to the NASA source of the data, which they give to the nearest hour … and the NASA source shows exactly how it is calculated. Perhaps you could explain to us where they are going wrong …
w.
Greg Goodman says:
February 9, 2014 at 1:39 pm
LS: “I have tried to make you do that for some time now. TSI is a measure of the energy we put into the system every second.”
Yes and we have a “shortcut” for that, the correct term is …. power.
What is important is to use the term ‘energy’ per unit time and to think in terms of energy in and energy out, not ‘power in’ and ‘power out’. The correct term in thermodynamics is ‘energy’, e.g. http://www2.estrellamountain.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/biobookener1.html for the correctness-challenged.
Leif:
Whilst I accept that TSI is a measure of the incoming power TOA generically, the power received by a spot on Earth is not that simple.
The true ‘incoming power’ on almost all days (other than the Equinox and the currently directly under the Sun points) is not a simple ‘half wave rectified sine wave’. It is some form of ‘rectified sine wave with a DC offset’.
This does make the calculation somewhat more complicated.
If we assume that (clear sky throughout the 24 hours) the ‘drain’ to cold is a descending curve then the much used Min + Max / 2 = Average is along way from true as well (other again than at the Equinox, etc.).
Willis: ” if Greg wants to assert that the sun affects the climate”
It’s not an “assertion” it pretty bleeding obvious that “the sun affects the climate” it where all the energy comes from. If you want to put words in my mouth , try to get them right.
I’ve said here and in the MSL thread that I think the effect is small if there but that the usual simplistic tests are not sufficient to prove there is not a link. Since most people, even our esteemed professor seem incapable of grasping the point, there are a lot of possibly false negatives flying around.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=759
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=121
There is certainly some signals that that could be solar periodicities and a strong 9.x that would cause a phase crisis in SSN vs SST and screw up simplistic attempts at correlation testing.
If others could discuss the scientific questions rather then belligerently trying cover up early gaffs and their ignorance by being pigheaded and inflammatory, more progress could be made on understanding the data and much time and effort saved.
Have you worked out how to do a lagged correlation (aka autocorrelation function) plot in R yet?
Greg Goodman says:
February 9, 2014 at 1:43 pm
Sorry, I must have missed your link to the trig, perhaps you could post it again. Remember that I asked for a citation to something other than your own work.
Restating it doesn’t help, it still makes no sense. You haven’t even defined a “modulation”, except to say that modulation is defined as the addition of two cosines, which doesn’t help. That’s why I asked for a citation to something not written by you, as your claims and your terminology are sometimes less than clear.
Thanks,
w.
Greg Goodman says:
February 9, 2014 at 2:24 pm
I’ve known how to use the R acf() function for a few years now … what’s your point?
w.
Greg Goodman says:
February 9, 2014 at 2:21 pm
It’s not an “assertion” it pretty bleeding obvious that “the sun affects the climate” it where all the energy comes from.
Indeed, or perhaps you mean ‘power’…
Anyway, there is a solar TSI-related effect of the order of 0.1 degrees and with no measurable lag, but the real issue is whether the Sun is a MAJOR driver of climate on the timescale of centuries and it is not, e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/Nagoya-Lean-2012.pdf
BTW, note slide 3 showing the Earth’s Energy Budget [not power] labelled with W/m2
“Restating it doesn’t help, it still makes no sense.”
go back to my triplets article discussed above. NUSW site gives you pics. The maths link provided the idenity, I explain in some detail how it works. So does WP. I’ve given you search terms….. What more do you wnat, do I have to pop over for a beer and read it to you? come on.
Looking at the Indian Ocean it seems that its just 18.6 / 2 , no sign of 8.85 mixing in . Not much evidence of solar periods there, which goes along with the idea of tropics being resistant to changes in insolation.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=774
Greg Goodman says:
February 9, 2014 at 1:57 pm
You say that “modulation” is INDENTICAL [sic] to the addition of two cosines.
Wikipedia, on the other hand, confirms what I thought, which is that amplitude modulation is done by an equation of the form (1 + cos(signal)) * cos(carrier).
So all your handwaving doesn’t help. I have a ham radio licence, Greg, I’m not ignorant of AM or sidebands … I’m still waiting for your link to someone’s explanation of how you get an “interference pattern” with a frequency that is the average of the two frequencies being combined.
And as a musician, I use acoustic beat frequencies to tune my guitar, and I know very well how to calculate them … and they do NOT have the frequency of the average of the two underlying frequencies as you claim above when you average 8.85 and 9.3.
Instead, the beat frequency is the DIFFERENCE, not the average, of the underlying frequencies.
w.
“Anyway, there is a solar TSI-related effect of the order of 0.1 degrees and with no measurable lag”
I would expect a fast settling effect on shallow water. It’s like the small capacity part of the pot analogy. That would have minimal lag and thus equilibrate fast enough to be a direct correlation to power. That does not preclude a longer response in deeper reservoirs that would have significant lag, dependant on the time constant it may correlate better with integral, ie accumulated energy. That is where latter half 20th high activity could still be with us.
That is the point I was trying to make originally, global SST may take a while to drop back to 1900 levels even if get two low cycles, having been pumped up for the last 50 years. The idea of the 0.1 degree superficial effect may not be all there is. It really is too simplistic to expect one straight, fast resolving signal to tell the whole storey.
With respect to RGB’s comments, yes one needs to be careful how far one pushes the resistor-capacitor type analogies.
(1 + cos(signal)) * cos(carrier).
Expand it and you get the same thing : cos*cos but with more carrier added back in. That is to prevent the modulation going too deep and is why what radio calls “100%” modulation is just half amplitude modulation. If you go deeper than that you can’t recover the signal with a simple rectifier.
I also tune my guitar that way, I also explained the difference between beats and the non rectified modulation pattern. It’s because the ear is insensitive to phase so what we hear is the amplitude of the rectified cosine and we ‘count’ both the positive and negative modulation as a beat. If you look carefully each second pattern is upside down , there’s phase flip where it nips off.
The “beat frequency” is twice the real modulation signal.
It’s like the formula for planetary conjunctions. Since they count both superior and inferior conjunctions (ie they don’t care about the “phase” ) it is the same as the beats formula.
Don’t bet hung up on the term “interference pattern”. Look at the plots on the U. NSW link or do you own. Plot cos(9)+cos(10) count the peaks and calculate the period of the fast cycles. You’ll find they are neither 9 nor 10 😉
Radio sidebands are at carrier + modulation signal and carrier – modulation signal , so working back form two side bands the carrier is at the average and the separation is twice the modulation freq. Hence half the difference.
When you have exactly equal amplitude modulator and carries the carrier disappears and you get left with the two side bands. That is what the basic trig identity gives you. If they’re not equal you get the usual triplet, like I found in Arctic ice. It is obviously unlikely that the two will be the same size in climate so triplets are common.
Now I hope that’s enough because I can’t spend the rest of the night going over it. It does take a while to get your head around if you’re not familiar with the concepts so don’t scim read and expect to get it first time.
Greg.
Instead, the beat frequency is the DIFFERENCE, not the average, of the underlying frequencies.
Beats are the average (half the sum) modulated by the half the difference. We hear it rectified so what we hear is twice of (half the difference), ie the freq diff.
Greg Goodman says:
February 9, 2014 at 3:39 pm
I would expect a fast settling effect on shallow water. It’s like the small capacity part of the pot analogy. That would have minimal lag and thus equilibrate fast enough to be a direct correlation to power. <
Energy input, not power. And it is not like the pot. The pot starts cooling immediately when you remove the fire and to begin to warm instantly when the heat comes back on. No lag, no 'triangular' function.
That does not preclude a longer response in deeper reservoirs that would have significant lag, dependant on the time constant it may correlate better with integral, ie accumulated energy.
You must mean accumulated [i.e. integrated] power 🙂
That is the point I was trying to make originally, global SST may take a while to drop back to 1900 levels even if get two low cycles, having been pumped up for the last 50 years.
The run of solar activity in the 20th century has been similar to that of the 19th and of the 18th as well, so your argument is not valid, so you have no point to make.
W: “You’re asking the wrong guy. ”
I think that is what I was trying to point out to your good self. That also makes you the “wrong guy” to be telling me to toss out my formula.
Jeez, there are TWO cycles 18.0xxx and 18.6 . If you haven’t got that far yet, have a glass of humility and read up a bit before firing off.
“You must mean accumulated [i.e. integrated] power :-)”
No I mean the accumulated energy is the integral of the instantaneous power.
Greg Goodman says:
February 9, 2014 at 3:39 pm
That is the point I was trying to make originally, global SST may take a while to drop back to 1900 levels even if get two low cycles, having been pumped up for the last 50 years.
The run of solar activity in the 20th century has been similar to that of the 19th and of the 18th as well [minimum up to a maximum, then back to minimum], so your argument is not valid, so you have no point to make. Now, there are longer term variations of climate [1000 yr or so], we don’t know if they are caused by similar cycles in the sun [without any lags either] or if such cycles even exist.
Greg Goodman says:
February 9, 2014 at 4:39 pm
“You must mean accumulated [i.e. integrated] power :-)”
No I mean the accumulated energy is the integral of the instantaneous power
You didn’t notice the little smiley 🙂
Yeah, the energy input as measured by TSI is what we should concentrate on.
Willis Eschenbach says:
February 9, 2014 at 1:56 pm
“So … you say that if Greg claims that the sun is affecting the climate, the burden of proof is on Leif to show that it DOESN’T affect the climate?”
Well, in the first place, that is very poorly phrased. It is a given that the Sun is affecting the climate. It is the only significant heat source which does.
The question is whether solar variability has a significant impact on surface temperature variability. Leif, et al, are not arguing that it is not proven that the Sun has such an impact. He, in particular, is flat out claiming it does not. So, yes, he does carry the burden of proof of such a statement.
So far, his efforts to prove this are based on an extraordinarily shallow argument, made with his usual pugnacious grace and charm, one which Greg has taken him to the woodshed several times over. In a massive natural system with energy storage and retrieval mechanisms, the effect of short term input variations is generally severely attenuated, while that of long term influences is relatively amplified. The long term response can easily dominate under these circumstances, yet that input component would be lost “in the noise” of the overall input signal.
The situation here is very like AM radio. The information that is being transmitted may be bandlimited to substantially less than 20 kHz, but the carrier is at 540 kHz and above. The entire signal looks little like the waveform which is eventually going to come out at your speaker. But, the song is nevertheless there.
Greg, I officially dub you an expert…she said with a sherried tongue firmly planted in her cheeky self.
The pot starts cooling immediately when you remove the fire and to begin to warm instantly when the heat comes back on. No lag, no ‘triangular’ function.
With a large heat capacity and minimal losses , the temp increase will be near linear, dT/dt will be near constant. As you say that start to happen as soon as the heat is applies and stop wnen it is removed.
So , as I said, it is dT/dt that is in phase and correlates with the input not T(t).
Alternatively T(t) is in phase and correlates with integral { W(t) }
If you try to correlate the triangular T(t) ramp with power input it will be near zero since it is 90 degrees out of phase, despite the fact that the change in slope happens at the same time as the step in power.
Now if you’ve finished playing silly buggers, I’d rather discuss climate than play your silly games.
It may work with you 18 year old undergrads but I’m not impressed.
Bart says:
February 9, 2014 at 4:46 pm
He, in particular, is flat out claiming it does not. So, yes, he does carry the burden of proof of such a statement.
You cannot, or will not, read, what I have been saying for a long time is that there is no evidence that satisfies me that there is. There is no burden of proof of that statement.
So far, his efforts to prove this are based on an extraordinarily shallow argument, In a massive natural system with energy storage and retrieval mechanisms, the effect of short term input variations is generally severely attenuated, while that of long term influences is relatively amplified.
There is no good evidence for long-term changes of solar activity either, so your qualitatively handwringing is moot.
Willis Eschenbach says:
February 9, 2014 at 2:47 pm
“Wikipedia, on the other hand, confirms what I thought, which is that amplitude modulation is done by an equation of the form (1 + cos(signal)) * cos(carrier).”
(1 + cos(signal)) * cos(carrier) = cos(carrier) + 0.5*cos(carrier+signal) + 0.5*cos(carrier-signal)
Greg, you say:
Are “9” and “10” frequencies, periods, or what? Are they in radians, degrees, years, or what?
w.
Are “9″ and “10″ frequencies, periods, or what? Are they in radians, degrees, years, or what?
Come on Willis, you’re a bright chap , do I need to spell it, dot all the I’s and cross the T’s?
Plot a couple of cosines in whatever units you fancy and count the bumps.
Bart says:
February 9, 2014 at 4:54 pm
Yes, agreed, that’s true … but what does that have to do with Greg’s claim that “Addition of two cosines is mathematically INDENTICAL to a modulation.”
w.
Bart says:
February 9, 2014 at 4:54 pm
Thanks Bart, I’d already replied to that but that’s another way to explain it.
Folks, if there is scant evidence that it is and scant evidence that it isn’t (regardless of what “it” is), the null hypothesis must still rule. That is how science works. It is up to solar enthusiasts (and CO2 enthusiasts) to show a robust correlation and mechanism that is stronger than the null hypothesis which is rooted in intrinsic factors. Deal with it.
Yes, agreed, that’s true … but what does that have to do with Greg’s claim that “Addition of two cosines is mathematically INDENTICAL to a modulation.”
Look at it Willis. RHS is the “addition of two cosines” ; LHS is the multiplication (ie modulation).
Greg Goodman says:
February 9, 2014 at 4:57 pm
Well, one thing’s for sure. I’m too bright to play guessing games with someone who STILL hasn’t given me the citations I’ve asked for. You can continue the conversation without me.
You don’t answer questions, you don’t answer requests, you airily wave your hand at Wikipedia and tell me I should study some vague something that you don’t specify or link to. You don’t explain your terms. You don’t give the math that you claim underlies your claims. You may be knowledgeable, Greg, but if so, you sure are making every effort to hide it.
And now this. I ask you a simple question for clarification and you flat freakin’ refuse to answer, and instead you insult my intelligence because I can’t read your mind. I don’t give a damn how smart anyone is, because no one knows what you mean by “cos(9)” and “cos(10)”. Nine and ten what?
Piss off, fool, I’m done with you. There’s no cheese at the end of your maze, just more insults and no answers. Go play with someone else, it’s no fun for me. You want me to guess that you mean 9 degrees and 10 degrees so you can abuse me for not guessing right?
Son, I’m too old and too wise to play that game … I’m out. Bother someone else.
w.
lsvalgaard says:
February 9, 2014 at 4:51 pm
“You cannot, or will not, read, what I have been saying for a long time is that there is no evidence that satisfies me that there is.”
If that is your position, then I have erred, and apologize. I would suggest you persistently make your position clear, as not everyone has the time to read an entire thread to see where precisely the protagonists stand. What I stated was the vibe I got from the argument you were having with Greg.
Greg Goodman says:
February 9, 2014 at 4:48 pm
As you say that start to happen as soon as the heat is applied and stop when it is removed.
You have seen the light, yay. So we agree that the pot does not continue to warm after the heat is removed.
Alternatively T(t) is in phase and correlates with integral { W(t) }
Taken over how long? a minute [the heating-cooling cycle], a day, a month, a million years? The integral grows monotonically with time and diverges towards infinity. If you take the integral over the heating-cooling cycle it is constant, so T is constant?
No, a proper analysis uses the concept of a source-function and a loss-function and evaluates the energy balance using those, based on the energy input/loss per unit time..
Bart says:
February 9, 2014 at 5:05 pm
If that is your position, then I have erred, and apologize.
Accepted.
I would suggest you persistently make your position clear, as not everyone has the time to read an entire thread to see where precisely the protagonists stand. What I stated was the vibe I got from the argument you were having with Greg.
I have persistently done this perhaps a hundred times over the past several years. I don’t think I have an argument with Greg, I am trying to teach him something: that not everything is a nail.
Pam “That is how science works. ”
If someone said “null hypothesis” prove otherwise, it’s a fair argument. If someone says no correlation therefore I’ve proved it’s not there, I say there is a logical flaw, since no correlation is not sufficient (in mathematical use of the word) to establish that claim.
Those who lack the maths to realise can be excused if they are prepared to listen when it is explained in detail. Those who don’t lack the maths are either just trolling on a Sunday afternoon or past their sell-by date.
Greg Goodman says:
February 9, 2014 at 5:10 pm
since no correlation is not sufficient (in mathematical use of the word) to establish that claim.
I think we are not discussing mathematics, but physics – you know: cause and effect, not what might or might not be that we don’t know about…
lsvalgaard says:
February 9, 2014 at 5:10 pm
“I don’t think I have an argument with Greg, I am trying to teach him something: that not everything is a nail.”
If that is your intention, it is not coming across. Greg has been laying out a clear case for his POV, of which…
Greg Goodman says:
February 9, 2014 at 5:10 pm
“If someone says no correlation therefore I’ve proved it’s not there, I say there is a logical flaw, since no correlation is not sufficient (in mathematical use of the word) to establish that claim.”
I would personally amend that to say “no immediate 1:1 correlation”, or “no 0th order correlation” as a stated previously, or something along those lines of simple and straightforward correlation. But, it seems as if Greg is under the same impression as I, that you were arguing that solar influence is disproved to have an effect by lack of simple correlation.
If we can all agree that it is not disproved, but that the case for proving it does not, at this time at least, rise to the level to persuade Leif, then I think the argument is over.
” If you take the integral over the heating-cooling cycle it is constant, so T is constant?”
You were the one that insisted the analogy compared to a climate that had been running for billions of years. so yes over [an] integral number of heating cycles it’s constant since you imposed that condition.
The cooling cycle matches the warming cycle hence the triangular waveform.
“proper analysis….. based on the energy input/loss per unit time..”
That would be the _time integral_ of the “energy input/loss per unit time” if you want a temperature.
Enough of this shit, Good night Willis , hope you manage to make sense of it.
Bart says:
February 9, 2014 at 5:18 pm
If we can all agree that it is not disproved, but that the case for proving it does not, at this time at least, rise to the level to persuade Leif, then I think the argument is over.
There never was an argument, just a pissing contest based on nitpicking, e.g. over Energy vs. Power. In the scientific community concerned with climate and the Sun the discussion is held in terms of Energy input [expressed in W/m2] and nobody uses the term ‘power’ for this [I gave a link for this, and can give hundreds more], so ‘correct’ is what is being used, not what one likes it to be.
Greg Goodman says:
February 9, 2014 at 5:20 pm
You were the one that insisted the analogy compared to a climate that had been running for billions of years. so yes over an integral number of heating cycles it’s constant since you imposed that condition.
Which is proper if you want it to be an analogy of the real climate.
In the real case, the heating-cooling cycle for a place on the Earth is a day so the triangular waveform washes out over, say, over a month or a year, or a solar cycle, so monthly [yearly, …] averages should correlate with the energy input [as it does] per unit time for any given location, and averaged over the globe there would no triangular waveform left regardless of the interval chosen.
Bart says:
February 9, 2014 at 5:18 pm
I would personally amend that to say “no immediate 1:1 correlation”, or “no 0th order correlation” as a stated previously, or something along those lines of simple and straightforward correlation.
As the lag [found empirically – see Lean – as giving the best best in a multivariate analysis] between TSI and Temps is of the order of one month over timescales of the decades over which we have actual observations of TSI, correlation of yearly values would be for all practical purposes ‘immediate, 1:1 0th order’.
So, are we all agreed here now that there is an important variation in the UV coming from the sun? This does not necessarily affect TSI that much, as it just shifts the distribution curve a bit. My own investigations and those of William Arnold confirm this inner change within TSI comes as a result of some solar or solar/planetary cycles.
So TSI is relatively constant, but the amount of ozone / peroxides / nitric oxides produced TOA is not. Therefore the amount of (subsequent) back radiation caused by these substances results in a variation of the amount of radiation that ends up in the oceans, specifically of the type that heats the oceans,
This is the only logical explanation I can think of for the observed drop in maximum temperatures, which seems to follow an A-C curve.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
.
Greg: Lief: Willis: Whoever…
This thing about adding or multiplying for frequencies. The true answer is that it is always both.
So we get FM radio type stuff with addition where the frequencies are a long way apart.
And we get moiré interference patterns where the two are closer together.
For frequencies that are neither obviously one or the other often both factors are visible quite easily.
Thus 60 and 4 gives 56, 64 and 240.
2000 and 4 gives 1996, 2004 and 8000.
To be accurate that should read as below I suppose.
Thus 60 and 4 gives 4, 56, 60, 64 and 240.
2000 and 4 gives 4, 1996, 2000, 2004 and 8000.
lsvalgaard says:
February 9, 2014 at 5:37 pm
“There never was an argument, just a pissing contest based on nitpicking, e.g. over Energy vs. Power.”
It’s not a nitpick. Power and energy are as different as velocity and position, as salary and wealth. If I tell you how fast a car is going, can you tell me if it is in California or New York? If I tell you someone is worth $1M, can you tell me his monthly salary? And, vice versa?
lsvalgaard says:
February 9, 2014 at 5:45 pm
“As the lag [found empirically – see Lean – as giving the best best in a multivariate analysis] between TSI and Temps is of the order of…”
There is no single lag. There is a phase response. There may be a mean lag for dominant frequencies, but that is as useful as using mean national income to determine how much money a given person makes.
Defining the problem is half the battle. And, if you are sloppy in defining it, you aren’t going to make any headway.
Bart, it seems to me that using your methods, I would be able to point to elephant tail wagging as the driver of the problem you wish to investigate. There is no more appropriate discipline than research to have pasted on your forehead the acronym KISS.
HenryP, your hypothesis needs one more addition. On what part of the globe are you saying this affect from ozone is most important? Equatorial? Extratropical? Polar? Be careful which you choose. The interaction between globe position and angle of illumination has a nasty habit of making your calculated result not matter. And remember there is a noisy night and day difference as well as location overhead for ozone that could obscure your tiny wriggles. Literally. So again, your calculations would not matter.
Bart says:
February 10, 2014 at 8:46 am
It’s not a nitpick. Power and energy are as different as velocity and position
You are missing the point. The issue was if it was ‘correct’ to use TSI [power] as a measure of the energy input to the system, as in slide 3 of http://www.leif.org/EOS/Nagoya-Lean-2012.pdf
showing the Earth’s Energy Budget [not power] labelled with W/m2
My point was that it is customary to use W/m2 as a measure of Energy. that makes it correct usag, hence nitpicking.
And, if you are sloppy in defining it, you aren’t going to make any headway.
You may safely assume that scientists working in this field are not sloppy morons and that we know what we are doing. When it comes to global temperature forced by solar radiation on timescales of decades there is no lag [well, one month which doesn’t matter for yearly values]. That is the issue when correlation the two variables.
Pamela Gray says:
February 10, 2014 at 8:54 am
Pamela – KISS is an excellent principle when you are designing a system to do something practical. For determining how an extant system operates, not so much. You must make things as simple as possible, but not simpler.
What I (we, as I am sure Greg would concur) am arguing is, in fact, very commonplace. In typical dissipative systems, small low frequency inputs are generally amplified while higher frequencies are severely attenuated. With even a simple one-box system model, power transmission rolls off at -40 dB/decade. Thus, a low frequency input component can easily have 100X the impact of a component a single decade higher. Add in another state to get a resonance, and it can easily soar to 1000X or more.
This is the basis for our entire industry of telecommunications. Out of all the electromagnetic energy bouncing around out there, you are able to tune in a relatively very weak signal on your radio. How can you possibly find the tail of that humongous elephant? You can, and you do, on an everyday basis.
RichardLH says:
February 10, 2014 at 3:38 am
And yet, Greg keeps insisting that we get the average of the two frequencies, in this case 32 for the first case, and 1002 for the second case … and when I ask him to explain it, he waves his hands at the whole web and tells me I don’t understand.
Richard, I couldn’t take Greg’s BS any more, but since you agree with me, would you like to try to get Greg to explain how he takes the two frequencies 8.55 and 9.3, beats them together, and gets the average frequency …
w.
lsvalgaard says:
February 10, 2014 at 9:04 am
What we are interested in is retained energy, as that is what determines temperature.
Willis Eschenbach says:
February 10, 2014 at 9:20 am
cos(8.55*t) + cos(9.3*t) = 2*cos(8.925*t)*cos(0.375*t)
Bart says:
February 10, 2014 at 9:20 am
What we are interested in is retained energy, as that is what determines temperature.
Is not responsive to the discussion [‘nitpicking’, lags].
Clarification from above:
“With even a simple one-box system model, power transmission rolls off at -40 dB/decade. “
Amplitude generally rolls off at -20 dB/decade, and the square at -40 dB/decade. But, the formula for dB in amplitude is 20*log10. Power engineers typically use 10*log10 as their scale, so they would say -20 dB/decade still. Just noting it in case of any confusion. The attenuation factor is still 100X in either convention.
Bart says:
February 10, 2014 at 9:10 am
Out of all the electromagnetic energy bouncing around out there, you are able to tune in a relatively very weak signal on your radio.
But, evidently, the climate system is not [as there is no correlation], so your analogy is moot and what you know about radios does not carry over to the climate system.
lsvalgaard says:
February 10, 2014 at 9:30 am
Not all the power is transmitted to become stored energy over the long term.
Example: Let’s say I had a power input of
P = 1 + 100*cos(w*t)
and a transmission function
E = P/(1 + (tau*w)^2)
If tau*w = 100, which of the components of P is going to have greater impact on E?
Answer: the “1”
lsvalgaard says:
February 10, 2014 at 9:34 am
“But, evidently, the climate system is not [as there is no correlation], so your analogy is moot and what you know about radios does not carry over to the climate system.”
Really? Do you actually think you could pick out the signal of your local radio station from a time series plot of the full spectrum of electromagnetic energy in your vicinity? Rotsa’ ruck!
Bart says:
February 10, 2014 at 9:35 am
Example: Let’s say I had a power input of…
Still not responsive, and the ‘correct’ term [by common usage is ‘energy input’, not ‘power input, see http://www.leif.org/EOS/123222295-Lean-Trends.pdf ]. Observationally there is no lag.
Bart says:
February 10, 2014 at 9:38 am
“But, evidently, the climate system is not [as there is no correlation], so your analogy is moot and what you know about radios does not carry over to the climate system.”
Really?
Yes, really!
Your knowledge in one area is not always applicable in other areas, and in particular not in this area.
LOL! In terms of radio frequencies, your “found” elephant tail radio frequency is relatively HUGE in the sea of larger and smaller -EHF runs the range of frequencies from 30 to 300 gigahertz- radio frequencies compared to what you are trying to find in solar parameter teleconnections with Earthly warming or cooling trend parameters. And it is KISSABLY simple to figure that out. Terrible analogy. Terrible. You should know better.
lsvalgaard says:
February 10, 2014 at 9:41 am
If it is Watts, it is power. Plain and simple. Energy is Joules. Power is Joules/sec = Watts. Do I really have to explain this to you?
lsvalgaard says:
February 10, 2014 at 9:45 am
“Yes, really!”
No. Really. You wouldn’t have a prayer. This isn’t even marginally credible.
This is the kind of bluster and bravado which diminishes your credibility on other subjects. You really should avoid it if you want people to listen to you on subjects you genuinely know something about.
Pamela Gray says:
February 10, 2014 at 9:46 am
Not in the time domain, sweetie.
I’m clearly not getting through to the uninitiated. Go on and have a party, guys. I’ve got things to do.
By the way, the equipment I used to create the tone pips used in my research gated and filtered the high frequency signal coming from the signal generator to create a narrow high frequency set of tones set at a sudden onset and a certain dB level used to evoke auditory brainstem potentials. So I know how to find the signal I want. My dear Bart, puuulllease!!!!
Or should that be Bartie. LOLOL!
Bart says:
February 10, 2014 at 9:10 am
Bart, I always get nervous when someone starts using electronics as an analogue for the climate world. Why?
Well, because we can do scads of things in electronics that have no corresponding real-world counterpart. For example, we can make materials with negative refraction indexes that are invisible to microwaves … something which to my knowledge doesn’t exist in nature.
In addition, electromagnetic waves are not like heat waves, in that electromagnetic waves have an inherent frequency which they generally maintain through thick and thin. As a result, we can pick them apart and find the tail of the elephant … perhaps you could point to the frequency of a given heat wave, and how we can use that frequency to distinguish it from some other heat wave?
Heck, we don’t even need mathematics to separate out the different electromagnetic frequencies. We can use something as simple as a prism to divide the electromagnetic waves of different frequencies … perhaps, since this is your analogy, you can point us to the “climate prism” that will allow us to separate heat waves by their inherent frequency …
But wait, there’s more. In the electromagnetic world, we rarely have to deal with turbulence. You can mix dozens of light signals in a single fiber, and separate them back out again at the other end with near 100% fidelity … try that using pressure waves in a pipe, however, and the turbulence will defeat you every time.
But wait, there’s more yet. In electronics, we rarely have to deal with emergent phenomena, where in the climate they are the rule rather than the exception … and emergent phenomena are famously hard to model or even understand. Heck, despite our deep understanding of electricity in the laboratory, we still don’t have a complete theory of how lightning is generated.
But wait, there’s even more. Climate is generally held to be a chaotic system, one which is highly sensitive to initial conditions … and in general electronics is the opposite.
Let me summarize. In electronics, there is:
• very little turbulence
• very little chaos
• very few emergent phenomena, and
• every player is conveniently tagged and can be separated out by its inherent unchanging frequency.
In climate, not one of these things are true … and as a result, while in electronics we can “find the elephant” as you point out, this means NOTHING about the corresponding problem of attribution in climate.
And that’s why I get nervous when people say something like identifying the elephant is so dang simple that we do on an “everyday basis” in electronics … so what? When you can point me to the “climate prism” that works on climate like a prism works on electromagnetic waves, you might have something to discuss.
But until then, all you have is a false and misleading parallel.
w.
And then I had to filter the noisily huge cortical chaotic brainwaves to find just the tiny evoked auditory brainstem potentials coming from the 1st synaptic junction through to the 6th along the auditory nerve. So again, terrible analogy posted to the wrong thread. ROTFLMAO!!! So this sweetie does indeed know what she is talking about. Bartie.
@Pamela
the first position I looked at was a station in somewhere in the Alps. Leif gave me the data. It had good data going back to the beginning of the century. I did some some best fitting (with a polynomial) and saw a clear bending point (downwards) in 1951 and another one (upwards) in 1995. Here, the difference between the low (1995) and high (1995) was about 10%
the second position was a graph I looked at from the the SS (the baddies) relating to a place in the southern SH. It only had data from the beginning of the eighties, but there was an unmistaken trend upwards since 1995. The ozone was very low here, so the increase of the past two decades represented almost 50-100%!!
clearly the composition TOA differs, hence the differnce between my own first (global) graph and the second one below it (Alaska), here,
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
sadly, we have no measurements on peroxides and nitric oxides TOA. I think this is where Trenberth’s missing energy is hiding. He never considered the peroxides and the nitric oxides.
I, OTOH, think that the peroxides are dominating the SH (above the oceans) and thatb is why the ozone is less here. There never was a “hole” other than the natural holes that God put up in the sky. It is worthwhile noting though that without the ozone and the peroxides and the nitric oxides we’d all be dead.
.
sorry
Here, the difference between the low (1995) and high (1995) was about 10%
should be
Here, the difference between the low (1995) and high (1951) was about 10%
W you bring up an important point. Synaptic brain potentials are similarly tagged. We know about how long it takes an electronic signal to travel between synapses along a known nerve. Our filters can be set to these parameters and presto! We find the particular regularly evoked synaptic signal we are looking for embedded in the chaotic and much larger background noise. Thanks for tickling my brain about tagging.
Bart says:
February 10, 2014 at 9:50 am
If it is Watts, it is power. Plain and simple. Energy is Joules. Power is Joules/sec = Watts. Do I really have to explain this to you?
You have to learn [and perhaps explain to Greg] that the term in common usage in atmospheric physics is ‘energy input’ and not ‘power’. I gave you a couple of links. Did you consult them? Prove that you did, e.g. by providing the page number where the phrase ‘energy input’ occurs.
So HenryP, based on your logic, Atmospheric CO2 increase is HUGE and therefore should have a devastating, measurable affect on global temperature! Which means you believe in AGW based on the increase in CO2.
Logic. She’s a bi*ch but she’s my bi*ch.
My gosh. I have outdone myself. If solar enthusiasts are considering tiny increases in solar parameters as having been the driving source behind the warming trend, they will not be able to reject their null hypothesis (it being CO2 as the source). I wonder if they know why?
Could this be the reason why you no longer hear much from them about the solar-driven warming trend? The conversation has subtly changed to reasons for the pause. Since CO2 continues to climb they are in safer territory. As long as they ignore the HUGE monster blowing wind up their skirts. And it is pretty darned easy to show that CO2 does not create atmospheric pressure. So no wonder the solar cacophony has gotten louder.
Pamela Gray says:
February 10, 2014 at 9:53 am
You are proving my point. You need specialized equipment and analysis techniques to find the signals of interest.
Yes, it is straightforward to do when you know what you are looking for. What are we looking for here? We are looking for an input driving the transmission from input power to stored energy, and resulting in long term variability of the mean surface temperature. Do you know what that transmission function is? How well has the input been characterized? Answers: No. Not very well.
Bart says:
February 10, 2014 at 9:26 am
Yes, it is true that cos(a) + cos(b) is equal to 2 cos((a+b)/2) cos((a-b)/2). We’re in agreement on that question. However, that is a mathematical relationship, not an analysis of how interference patterns, aka “beat frequencies”, are generated.
However, there is a deeper problem with relating your equation to Greg’s claims. In your equation, 8.55 and 9.3 are the frequencies of the waveforms, typically in cycles per second or cycles per year.
Greg’s claim, on the other hand, involves two waves with periods of 8.55 and 9.3, which in this case are measured in years per cycle.
I know that your 8.55 and 9.3 are frequencies, because if your numbers 8.55 and 9.3 were periods (say years per cycle) then multiplying them by t (time) gives us units of years2/cycle … no bueno. So they are frequencies.
You see why I asked Greg above what he meant by “cos(9)” and “cos(10)”? It was for this very reason, to clarify the discussion … which is why I quit interacting with Greg when he replied with an insult instead of answering a simple request.
w.
PS—The frequency of the “beat” or interference pattern of two waves of frequency F1 and F2 is given by abs(F1 – F2), the absolute value of the difference of the frequencies. This fact was utilized in early “heterodyne” and “superheterodyne” radio receivers, heterodyne being a fancy word for beat frequency.
Rather than tune the radio to receive different frequencies, which is inefficient, the radio was tuned to give great fidelity at one frequency. Then the incoming signal was mixed (beat) against an oscillator which was adjusted so that the beat frequency, F2 – F1, was the frequency for which the radio was perfectly tuned … neat trick in my opinion.
Now, Greg is working with periods, not frequencies. To get the period of the beat frequency from the periods of the underlying waves is a matter of simple math. The frequency of the beat is the difference in frequencies of the underlying waves, or
Fb = F1 – F2
where Fb is the beat frequency, and F1 and F2 are the frequencies of the signals being added.
Using the relationship that F = 1/P, which is to say that the frequency is equal to one divided by the period (and vice versa), this can be written as:
Fb = 1/P1 – 1/P2
Putting the right side on a common denominator, we get
Fb = P2 / (P1 * P2) – P1 / (P1 * P2)
which simplifies to
Fb = ( P2 – P1) / (P1 * P2)
Inverting both sides, we get:
1/Fb = (P1 * P2) / ( P2 – P1)
But since the beat period is one over the beat frequency, that is to say
1/Fp = Pb
this gives us the period of the beat frequency. In planetary terms, this is called the “synoptic period”.
Note, however, that there is nothing in all of that to support Greg’s claim about how you get a beat frequency which has the average period of the two underlying periods … as far as I know, that doesn’t happen when you mix two signals.
Willis Eschenbach says:
February 10, 2014 at 9:56 am
“I always get nervous when someone starts using electronics as an analogue for the climate world. Why?
Well, because we can do scads of things in electronics that have no corresponding real-world counterpart. For example, we can make materials with negative refraction indexes that are invisible to microwaves … something which to my knowledge doesn’t exist in nature.”
I also get slightly nervous, but in the opposite direction. When people say you cannot use techniques from radio, audio, mechanical, etc. in Climate.
Power is power and loads are loads.
Input from the source, Solar, will ‘match’ into a complex load such as the Earth with a constantly varying acceptance ratio TOA down to surface with absorption and reflection along the way.
You could probably model the world quite well with a rotating globe of semi-absorbent, semi- reflective material in a micro-wave oven illuminated from one side and sitting in a vacuum.
Pure Mech Eng with some radio stuff thrown in.
And subject to all the known stuff used in those disciplines all the time.
So please don’t be so quick to cast off things from other disciplines. They have their place if properly used.
Bart says:
February 10, 2014 at 10:39 am
We are looking for an input driving the transmission from input power to stored energy, and resulting in long term variability of the mean surface temperature.
We are looking for how the energy input drives temperature. The empirically determined lag is only one month, so the ‘long-term’ variation should follow the variation of the energy input [e.g. as measure by TSI]. And it does not.
Pamela Gray says:
February 10, 2014 at 10:01 am
“And then I had to filter….”
Filter? FILTER! We don’t allow filters longer than a year in Climate work. They show all the wrong sort of things 🙂
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/Extendedtempseries-secondpass_zps089e4c7d.gif
Bart, the first step in the scientific process is observation. You then conduct various and repeated experiments to uncover the mechanics of the observation. You seem to be saying that you are still looking for an observation. If you cannot observe something correlating between a tiny solar and the temperature trend change AND that has a plausible mechanistic connection, you must acquit. IE Solar parameters are not responsible for the warming or cooling trend.
I am no fan of AGW, but at least CO2 enthusiasts observed a barely similar, but similar nonetheless, trend between warming and CO2 increase in the past. And they have observed a mechanism under lab and mathematical conditions that CO2 does indeed serve as a greenhouse gas, and can and does re-radiate LW infrared light in all directions, including towards a temperature sensor. Your solar parameter, choose one, does not have such a similarity with temperature trends nor does it have a plausible mechanism.
So indeed, using classical scientific inquiry, you must acquit.
lsvalgaard says:
February 10, 2014 at 10:44 am
“We are looking for how the energy input drives temperature. The empirically determined lag is only one month, so the ‘long-term’ variation should follow the variation of the energy input [e.g. as measure by TSI]. And it does not.”
Assuming we know accurately what the instantaneous acceptance/reflection ratio is and the storage constant times for any re-release, certainly.
RichardLH says:
February 10, 2014 at 10:52 am
Assuming we know accurately what the instantaneous acceptance/reflection ratio is and the storage constant times for any re-release, certainly.
There is good evidence that solar activity [measured by variation of the energy input, TSI] causes a 0.1 degree solar cycle variation of temperature. A similar number can be calculated from first principles, so it seems that the mechanism is reasonably well understood.
Richard, the same is true for brainwaves. Too many filters and you can find all kinds of things, including a correlation to the rising of the sun which is clearly caused by me waking up at 5:00 AM day in and day out.
Pamela Gray says:
February 10, 2014 at 10:58 am
the rising of the sun which is clearly caused by me waking up at 5:00 AM day in and day out.
Perhaps you waking up causes the Sun to rise 🙂
RichardLH needs to measure clouds. Quick!!!! Before they change!!!!!!…..hmmmmmm
Pamela Gray says:
February 10, 2014 at 10:58 am
“Richard, the same is true for brainwaves.”
Simple broadband low pass filters are what connect most people (or some anyway) to the Internet.
15 years is hardly a great stretch from decadal and ‘Gaussian’ is so much better than SSM (sub-sampled single mean) but…..
Pamela Gray says:
February 10, 2014 at 11:01 am
“RichardLH needs to measure clouds. Quick!!!! Before they change!!!!!!…..hmmmmmm”
The data and summaries of the data. Nothing more 🙂
lsvalgaard says:
February 10, 2014 at 10:56 am
“There is good evidence that solar activity [measured by variation of the energy input, TSI] causes a 0.1 degree solar cycle variation of temperature. A similar number can be calculated from first principles, so it seems that the mechanism is reasonably well understood.”
There is good evidence that we cannot model clouds very well which are a large part of the ‘instantaneous acceptance/reflection ratio ‘ so all is not that simple.
Climate Scientist: I want a tool to examine Climate Temperatures.
Geek: How do you define Climate?
Climate Scientist: Longer than 30 years.
Geek: So you want a tool that will show how the planet’s temperature responds in periods of more than 30 years?
Climate Scientist: Yes.
Geek: Well basic theory says that a Low Pass filter with a corner frequency of 15 years will do exactly what you want.
Climate Scientist: But that’s not complicated enough and anyway that does not show me what I like to see. It says that there are natural oscillations in the signal and my theory says they don’t exist.
Geek: ??????????
Richard, you are meandering from your argument, but at least you haven’t called me sweety. I am one of course but only in my private life. Professionally, the term is inappropriate and I hesitated to refer to Bart as Bartie. A weak moment on my part.
RichardLH says:
February 10, 2014 at 10:44 am
Richard, I use a host of techniques from a variety of other disciplines. In fact, climate science is the most interdisciplinary of sciences.
Which is why I said “I get nervous” rather than “I cast off” … because in addition, climate science is also perhaps the messiest of sciences. To start with, it’s about as non-linear as you can get.
We like to think of the world as linear, and we’ve made great strides by doing so. It’s a good technique, but it has its limits.
However, in climate science saying “non-linear phenomena” is like saying “non-elephant biology”, it’s the majority of what’s going on.
There are a host of complications in climate science, many of which involve the fact that much of the system is composed of evanescent emergent phenomena which only appear above a certain generally temperature-based threshold and act to cool the surface in dozens of ways … which means we are dealing with a system composed of entities rather than a system of continuously varying parameters. Nature doesn’t do “continuously varying” all that well. Instead, nature does edges and “rose-moles” as the poet put it,
GLORY be to God for dappled things— For skies of couple-colour as a brinded cow; For rose-moles all in stipple upon trout that swim; Fresh-firecoal chestnut-falls; finches’ wings; Landscape plotted and pieced ...… and climate, with its “skies of couple-color” and “landscape plotted and pieced”, is among the ultimate in non-linearity.
Faced with this, of course, our scienfic response is to take refuge in the linear … hey, we’re human. So we draw straight-line trends, and some are happy to extend them to the year 2080, linearity roolz, and so you hear things like “well, I know it’s not linear, but we can approximate it as linear over this range” … sorry, but unfortunately, that just ignores the hard reality that there is no linear approximation to an edge.
As a result, while all kinds of methods from many disciplines need to be used, we cannot do so blindly. We need to pick and choose very carefully when we start taking techniques from other fields and applying them to the denizens of the climate zoo …
And in particular, we can’t say “Well, it’s easy to find the elephant in the linear room of electronic signal processing, so what’s the problem in climate?” … which is a paraphrase, but I think an accurate one, of Bart’s comment above.
As always,
w.
RichardLH says:
February 10, 2014 at 11:05 am
There is good evidence that we cannot model clouds very well which are a large part of the ‘instantaneous acceptance/reflection ratio ‘ so all is not that simple.
We don’t need to model anything. The simple calculation uses the relation dS/S = 4 dT/T where S is the energy input and T is the temperature. Taking observed dS/S as 0.0013, you get dT/T = 0.000313 or with T=289K, dT = 0.09K. The ‘acceptance/reflection ratio’ is already in the value of 289 K. The only assumption is that those values do not vary much over a cycle. This is borne out by observations. So it is actually simple.
lsvalgaard says:
February 10, 2014 at 10:44 am
“We are looking for how the energy input drives temperature.”
It is not energy. It is power. It is Watts. You can call it whatever you want, of course. But, sloppy language leads to sloppy thoughts.
The empirically determined lag is only one month, so the ‘long-term’ variation should follow the variation of the energy input [e.g. as measure by TSI].”
An empirically determined mean lag is one month. The rest does not follow.
The long term variation should follow the variation in integrated power, filtered through the transmission function which relates input power to stored energy.
Pamela Gray says:
February 10, 2014 at 10:51 am
“if you cannot observe something correlating between a tiny solar and the temperature trend change AND that has a plausible mechanistic connection, you must acquit. IE Solar parameters are not responsible for the warming or cooling trend.”
A) The Sun is a major suspect. It is the only significant source of heat available.
B) A lack of a 0th order correlation is not conclusive. Even lack of an arbitrary order correlation is not conclusive.
When you blow through a whistle, does the wind in your breath correlate to the pitch you will hear coming out of the whistle? Of course not. If it did, you wouldn’t need the whistle. Yet, the whistle sounds with a clear and piercing note. Should we then conclude that you are not actually causing the whistle to make its sound, that it simply happens spontaneously, and there is no significance to the fact that it happens to do so right when you start blowing into it?
Pamela Gray says:
February 10, 2014 at 11:08 am
“A weak moment on my part.”
Obviously “sweetie” set you off. Sorry. To me, it is a term of endearment.
RichardLC, TOA solar heating is well-known, which is what Leif refers to (about 340 watts per square meter of solar energy arriving at the top of the atmosphere and will vary in general terms by the amount Leif states). It is intrinsic parameters (Earth sourced) that are not well known and mechanized. Solar heating at the surface is called Insolation (short for incident or incoming solar radiation) and is a measure of solar radiation energy received on a given surface area. The first measure is pure solar (extrinsic), the second is a combination of solar (extrinsic) and atmospheric/topographic (intrinsic) factors. Don’t confuse the two. Leif refers to TOA solar heating only.
Bart says:
February 10, 2014 at 11:16 am
You can call it whatever you want, of course. But, sloppy language leads to sloppy thoughts.
Not my term, but the term commonly used, so therefore, by definition, correct, and not due to sloppy thoughts
An empirically determined mean lag is one month.
‘The’ lag as observed for the time where we have actual measurements
The long term variation should follow the variation in integrated power, filtered through the transmission function which relates input power to stored energy.
The common usage is ‘energy input’, not ‘power input’. Did you consult the links I gave you. Why not?
B) A lack of a 0th order correlation is not conclusive. Even lack of an arbitrary order correlation is not conclusive.
If there is an effect it should be observable. If it is not, any ‘effect’ need not be of concern. That is the issue, not whether some unobservable effect might exist.
Bart, apology accepted. Pamela will do just fine.
Pamela Gray says:
February 10, 2014 at 11:17 am
“…TOA solar heating is well-known…”
Over what time interval? How does the uncertainty increase as you go farther into the past? At what point does it become purely speculative? And, how do those time intervals relate to the very long term climatic intervals of interest?
lsvalgaard says:
February 10, 2014 at 10:56 am
Thanks as always, Leif. Surface temperature average global upwelling radiation is ≈ 400 W/m2. Variation in TSI over the cycle is ~ 1/4 W/m2 averaged over the globe. We get about a 400/340 = 18% bump from the TOA solar to the surface via the greenhouse effect, so we’ll call the surface increase 1.2 * .25 = 0.3 watts. (Note that this ignores the fact that increasing/decreasing solar is counteracted by increasing/decreasing clouds.)
That gives us:
And indeed, that rounds to about a tenth of a degree as you say. So ignoring the cloud response, you and I get the same numbers.
My question, however, is … who has presented “good evidence” of such a cycle in the temperature record? A citation would be valuable here …
Gotta run,
w.
Pamela Gray says:
February 10, 2014 at 11:17 am
“RichardLC (sic), TOA solar heating is well-known, which is what Leif refers to (about 340 watts per square meter of solar energy arriving at the top of the atmosphere and will vary in general terms by the amount Leif states).”
I do rather know that. I was careful to state ‘TOA to surface’ for the acceptance/reflection ratio
so as to include all the other phenomena as well. That was no accident.
I agree that the tiny delta in the Solar output is unlikely to cause much direct delta in the temperatures. I must get my humour meter (re)checked.
W. It would be buried in the noise and cannot be extrapolated, since all temperature components end up as a single entity “heat” on a thermometer so therefore are tagged with the same tag (by the way brilliant thought).
lsvalgaard says:
February 10, 2014 at 11:25 am
“‘The’ lag as observed for the time where we have actual measurements”
A mean lag as observed. This is like claiming the observed global mean temperature tells you how warm it was in Peoria.
“Did you consult the links I gave you. Why not?”
Because it is sloppy, and I do not care to use sloppy nomenclature just because someone else is doing so. This is power. It is energy per unit of time. As I said, it is as different as velocity versus position.
“If there is an effect it should be observable. If it is not, any ‘effect’ need not be of concern.”
But, it does not follow that, just because some people say they cannot see it, it is of no concern. You have then arbitrarily constrained the range of observable phenomena to a specific subset of possibilities.
Pamela Gray says:
February 10, 2014 at 11:25 am
“Pamela will do just fine.”
Then, please, do not address me as “LOL”.
Willis Eschenbach says:
February 10, 2014 at 11:09 am
“Richard, I use a host of techniques from a variety of other disciplines. In fact, climate science is the most interdisciplinary of sciences.
Which is why I said “I get nervous” rather than “I cast off” … because in addition, climate science is also perhaps the messiest of sciences. To start with, it’s about as non-linear as you can get.
We like to think of the world as linear, and we’ve made great strides by doing so. It’s a good technique, but it has its limits.”
I know. It is just I thought you were casting your net a little too wide. Just a little bit of Hyperbole is all.
oops RichardLH. My bad.
Willis: Please note that I am a great critic of Linear Functions.
Linear Trend = Tangent to the curve = Flat Earth 🙂
Pamela Gray says:
February 10, 2014 at 11:35 am
“oops RichardLH. My bad.”
NP
Willis Eschenbach says:
February 10, 2014 at 11:27 am
My question, however, is … who has presented “good evidence” of such a cycle in the temperature record? A citation would be valuable here …
Many people has shown that. The estimates range from 0.05 to 0.2 K. Here is Lean’s estimate:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/LeanRindCauses.pdf
lsvalgaard says:
February 10, 2014 at 11:15 am
“The ‘acceptance/reflection ratio’ is already in the value of 289 K. The only assumption is that those values do not vary much over a cycle.”
I do need to explain my cartoon shorthand better.
Reflection includes clouds, albedo, sparkle, etc. Absorption includes in gas, liquid and solid. That rather does vary all the time and at different heights also.
Let’s move on. My poor attempt obviously failed. 🙁
Pamela Gray says:
February 10, 2014 at 11:08 am
“Richard, you are meandering from your argument, but at least you haven’t called me sweety.”
Not my sort of phrase really 🙂
Which argument? The one where I try to explain that a >15 year LP filter shows up interesting things in the climate data? I’m a bit boring on that one I know.
Doesn’t make it false though.
Bart, you do know that LOL means Laugh Out Loud, yes? And your analogy did indeed make me laugh. You must admit it was a silly one to use, knowing the number of people who frequent this blog who have had experience with frequency detection of one kind or another. Name calling, endearing or not, is another matter. Bartie was the inappropriate name I used and I have apologized for it. Laughing at the various strange theories and analogies offered here for solar connections to the temperature trend is part of the deal when one offers such things. For that I apologies not.
Bart says:
February 10, 2014 at 11:34 am
A mean lag as observed.
The lag as observed.
“Did you consult the links I gave you. Why not?”
Because it is sloppy, and I do not care to use sloppy nomenclature just because someone else is doing so.
You disqualify yourself by such statement. And there is nothing sloppy about it. Energy input is the correct term [as the area and time interval are implicitly given] and the term being used. To used to it, learn.
“If there is an effect it should be observable. If it is not, any ‘effect’ need not be of concern.”
But, it does not follow that, just because some people say they cannot see it, it is of no concern. You have then arbitrarily constrained the range of observable phenomena to a specific subset of possibilities.
You can point me too an analysis that convinces you that there is an effect to be concerned about and I will take a look [this attitude is in contrast to your refusing to look at links]. If there is an effect that need to worry about, it should be clear, large, and unmistakable, otherwise it is of no concern.
RichardLH says:
February 10, 2014 at 11:41 am
Reflection includes clouds, albedo, sparkle, etc. Absorption includes in gas, liquid and solid. That rather does vary all the time and at different heights also.
Unless those things vary systematically and significantly with solar activity they have no systematic effects and wash out. There are no convincing evidence that they do that I know of, but you might correct me on that by linking to what you consider compelling evidence for such variations and that they lead to temperature changes larger than the 0.1 degrees that we observe.
Leif, the data sets were obtained elsewhere by her, some of which have checkered histories. Nonetheless, using the various data sets of the components that cause K I can see how she could attribute overall K to each one. However, one cannot do the reverse by using the temperature series by itself and find separate identifiable signals from the various components that create the heat or lack thereof on the thermometer. So in a way, she a priori set the outcome of her analysis.
Bart:
I write to ask a genuine question. Please note that I am not taking sides: I am trying to understand what you are saying.
At February 9, 2014 at 12:29 pm you say
It seems you are claiming that two parameters (i.e. temperature and TSI) have a causal relationship but they do not correlate. Is that a correct understanding?
If I have understood you correctly, then I fail to see why there is any purpose in considering the putative relationship between “temperature and TSI” which you assert exists. I explain this as follows.
Assuming the putative causal effect does exist then its affect is so small that it is swamped by other effects because otherwise there would be a discernible correlation between “temperature and TSI”. However, if the system were invariate then affects of the putative effect may accumulate over time and, therefore, eventually become non-trivial. But the system does vary and, therefore, any accumulation of affects of the putative effect will be disrupted by variations in the more powerful effects.
Simply, the putative effect is so small that it is swamped by other effects, and affects of the putative effect cannot accumulate because any accumulation will be disrupted by variability of the larger effects.
Hence, if the putative effect does exist then it cannot achieve discernible affects. Why investigate something which – if it exists – cannot be discerned and has no affects which can be discerned? The investigation seems impossible to conduct and the investigation would be purposeless if it were possible.
I am hoping you can explain the matter to me.
Richard
Pamela Gray says:
February 10, 2014 at 11:44 am
“You must admit it was a silly one to use, knowing the number of people who frequent this blog who have had experience with frequency detection of one kind or another.”
Only because the point apparently blew over your head. As I said, you proved my point. You have to resort to sophisticated methods of analysis to detect the signals you are looking for in all the hash. you cannot just “see it” with a glance at the time series.
“Bartie was the inappropriate name I used and I have apologized for it.”
I’m fine with “Bartie”. I’m not fine with using derision as a debating tactic when you are making a non-point.
lsvalgaard says:
February 10, 2014 at 11:55 am
“Unless those things vary systematically and significantly with solar activity they have no systematic effects and wash out. There are no convincing evidence that they do that I know of, but you might correct me on that by linking to what you consider compelling evidence for such variations and that they lead to temperature changes larger than the 0.1 degrees that we observe.”
All I can do is point to a regular periodic (or quasi periodic) ~60 year signal in the temperature data and conclude that something is going on.
If it turns out to be actually regular then Orbital has to be a candidate. It could be Sunspots also but that could be just a reflection of Orbital. Beyond that I am stuck at present.
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/Extendedtempseries-secondpass_zps089e4c7d.gif
Pamela Gray says:
February 10, 2014 at 11:56 am
However, one cannot do the reverse by using the temperature series by itself and find separate identifiable signals from the various components that create the heat or lack thereof on the thermometer. So in a way, she a priori set the outcome of her analysis.
I think one can do that if there is enough variation of the parameters and enough data points. I have myself successfully done that with geomagnetic activity. But, in any case, other people have tried to quantify the effect of solar activity on temperature and they consistently find results in the 0.05 to 0.2 K range, so Lean’s finding is in the ballpark. At any rate, there cannot be an effect larger than that, otherwise it would be plainly obvious and it is not [otherwise we would not discuss it].
A particular interest of mine is temperature lags related to Earth Shine data (a pretty good proxi for clouds and other irradiance reflecting substances, thus amount of solar insolation penetrating the ocean surface) around the equatorial belt, since variously warmed/less warmed water there goes elsewhere as it rides the various currents and winds around the globe in a globby, lagged and various lackadaisical fashion. My back of the envelop hunch is that variations and trends in equatorial Earth Shine indices may show up later as changes and trends in regional land temperatures.
RichardLH says:
February 10, 2014 at 12:03 pm
All I can do is point to a regular periodic (or quasi periodic) ~60 year signal in the temperature data and conclude that something is going on.
Although you might find people who claim there is a 60-year solar variation, it does not rise over the background [lots of peaks] noise to be significant.
Pamela Gray says:
February 10, 2014 at 12:06 pm
A particular interest of mine is temperature lags related to Earth Shine data
I am also following that data with interest [and was at some point toying with the idea of installing one of their monitors in my backyard…]. They are a bit behind in reduction of the data, but so far there does not seem to be a clear solar cycle variation.
richardscourtney says:
February 10, 2014 at 11:57 am
“It seems you are claiming that two parameters (i.e. temperature and TSI) have a causal relationship but they do not correlate. Is that a correct understanding?”
No, I am saying they do not necessarily correlate on an obvious level. That to determine the correlation, you must have a notion of the input/output relationship which is defined by the transmission function from input power to output stored energy.
As an example, I refer you to the simple example in the post above.
Looking at a time series plot of P, you would barely register the constant offset of 1% of the peak signal. But, it would nevertheless be the dominant influence on E.
It can be even more subtle than this.The “1” could simply be white noise with unity area in the PSD below a frequency of w, and despite the complete lack of deterministic correlation, its effects would dominate E.
There is much about this system which is unknown. Jumping to the conclusion that there is no I/O relationship due to a superficial lack of obvious correlation is not justified at this time.
lsvalgaard says:
February 10, 2014 at 11:47 am
“You can point me too an analysis that convinces you that there is an effect to be concerned about and I will take a look…”
As of right now, I have nothing I’d care to share. If you believe there is no evidence which rises to a level which could convince you of a linkage, I am fine with that. I have seen evidence which convinces me that the jury is still out. My glass is half full, and your’s is half empty. There is no reason which compels us to definitively proclaim the glass to be either full or empty at this time.
Proxie problems (a lack of good, consistent ones) and mixing different ways of measuring albedo harms our ability to study this feature of our planet. But mechanistically, I consider this intrinsic parameter to be a candidate for land surface temperature trends. Why? Because of the way in which oceans are heated equatorially to a lesser or greater extent via SW infrared. Trends here could very well end up as trends elsewhere. It’s just hard to say a trend exists when the raw data is so terrible.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/cloudy-outlook-for-albedo/
And I do not mean to correlate albedo measures with solar parameters simply because I haven’t observed a correlation between temps and solar parameters if I assume that temps are a good proxi for albedo. TOA solar indices are not part of my thinking related to temperature trends.
Bart says:
February 10, 2014 at 12:22 pm
I have seen evidence which convinces me that the jury is still out. My glass is half full, and your’s is half empty.
If the jury is still out, it could go either way, so your glass is only quarter full, and thus not to worry about.
Sorry you ladies an gentlemen
you will never get it
because you all keep looking at the wrong parameter
Maximum temperature is a good proxy for energy coming through the atmosphere
and I have reported the results of a globally representative sample in my first table here,
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
not cherry picked but properly balanced (longitude does not matter)
Once you figured out that there is a variation on an 87 or 88 years scale, as reported by various investigations, other than my own!, on energy coming through the atmosphere,it follows that as the temperature differential between the poles and equator grows larger due to the cooling from the top, very likely something will also change on earth. Predictably, there would be a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average. At the equator insolation is 684 W/m2 whereas on average it is 342 W/m2. So, if there are more clouds in and around the equator, this will amplify the cooling effect due to less direct natural insolation of earth (clouds deflect a lot of radiation). Furthermore, in a cooling world there is more likely less moisture in the air, but even assuming equal amounts of water vapour available in the air, a lesser amount of clouds and precipitation will be available for spreading to higher latitudes. So, a natural consequence of global cooling is that at the higher latitudes it will become cooler and/or drier.
As the people in Alaska have noted,
http://www.adn.com/2012/07/13/2541345/its-the-coldest-july-on-record.html
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130520/97-year-old-nenana-ice-classic-sets-record-latest-breakup-river-1
the cold weather in 2012 was so bad there that they did not get much of any harvests. My own results show that it has been cooling significantly in Alaska since 1998
http://oi40.tinypic.com/2ql5zq8.jpg
I find that in Alaska or at [60] to [70] latitude it has already been cooling at a rate of 0.55 degrees C per decade since 1998, on average
which is almost ONE full degree C SINCE 1998.
Soon, you will know that we are globally cooling and that it will get serious. You guys are still playing violin while Rome is burning,
ehhh,
that should be freezing….
you have no idea yet what is coming up in the next 20 years.
paradoxically perhaps, I should mention that where it will get drier it might even get a bit hotter…
that is how climate works…
if you know what I mean.
Bart says:
February 10, 2014 at 12:16 pm
I don’t understand that at all. Tau and omega are presumably constants. If tau * w = 100, then
output = input / 10001
Now, you’ve said:
Since in the example above the output is the input over a constant, it’s not clear how this helps your case …
Now, you say “which of the components of P is going to have greater impact on E”. Well, since E = P/constant, that’s identical to asking which of the components of P is going to impact P the most …
But you haven’t defined your terms. What does “have a greater impact on” mean? First, what are you calling “components”? To be more precise, which of the following parts of P are “components”: 1, 100, w, t, w*t, and cos(w*t)?
Next, by “have a greater impact on”, do you mean “for a given absolute change in the parameter”, or “for a given percentage change in the parameter”. These give very, very different results.
Finally, how are you measuring the impact? I mean, if we change omega, the amplitude doesn’t change but the frequency does, and the opposite is true if we change the “100”. Which is the greater impact?
w.
Willis Eschenbach:
Thankyou for your post at February 10, 2014 at 9:16 pm.
It clearly expresses my puzzlement at the reply to me from Bart. I have been trying to decide how to politely express the puzzlement because I have already had a row with the egregious Gareth P upthread.
Your words summarise my view in language which I would like to be able to emulate. Thankyou.
Richard
lsvalgaard says:
February 10, 2014 at 12:08 pm
“Although you might find people who claim there is a 60-year solar variation, it does not rise over the background [lots of peaks] noise to be significant.”
I believe you. I am just trying to explore where the ~60 year signal comes from. I assume you mean Scafetta as the “people”?
RichardLH says:
February 11, 2014 at 3:09 am
I am just trying to explore where the ~60 year signal comes from. I assume you mean Scafetta as the “people”?
Good guess
lsvalgaard says:
February 11, 2014 at 4:39 am
“Good guess” 🙂
I suspect that it is a co-incidence that the two figures are the same. I can find no mechanism that would allow this to be directly Solar output related. The deltas are just too small. I believe that what we have is some orbital or other cyclically related phenomena which happens to have the same periodicity as sun spots or their sub-cycles.
Now all we need is a mechanism 🙂
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/200YearsofTemperatureSatelliteThermometerandProxy_zpsd17a97c0.gif
RichardLH says:
February 11, 2014 at 5:16 am
I suspect that it is a co-incidence that the two figures are the same.
But they are not. There is no significant solar cycle of 60-years. Scafetta’s claim is bogus [as we have discussed before at great length here on WUWT].
@RichardLH
http://www.nonlin-processes-geophys.net/17/585/2010/npg-17-585-2010.html, just looking at
I think in the end, only the observed solar/planetary cycles Suess and Gleisberg are relevant for today. This is because whatever cycling happens on earth, must in the end, be a function of the amount of heat that is allowed through the atmosphere. The Gleissberg was confirmed by my own results, going back (only) to 1974. I would not trust anything before 1950 anyway. (no re-calibration of thermometers, no automatic temp. recording)
HenryP says:
February 11, 2014 at 5:57 am
“The Gleissberg was confirmed by my own results, going back (only) to 1974. I would not trust anything before 1950 anyway. (no re-calibration of thermometers, no automatic temp. recording)”
Interestingly, as we are only concerned with deltas not absolutes, it is possible to trace short term variability even in patched and re-worked records. 🙂
Leif:
I agreed that any delta in the Solar figures around 60 years in period length was too small to be significant. Did I not make that clear?
RichardLH says:
February 11, 2014 at 6:13 am
I agreed that any delta in the Solar figures around 60 years in period length was too small to be significant. Did I not make that clear?
I sharpened the issue a bit by reminding you that the claim was bogus to begin with.
Leif: So what, if any, long term periodics do you accept can be derived from the Sun (as directly relevant here on Earth)?
RichardLH says:
February 11, 2014 at 6:21 am
Leif: So what, if any, long term periodics do you accept can be derived from the Sun (as directly relevant here on Earth)?
There is a ~100 year quasi-period [probably not stable and may range from 80 to 120 years]. Anything longer than that is speculative, although a 200-yr period is often claimed to exist [based on cosmic ray proxies]. We know the reason for the standard 11-yr period, but have no good explanation for any longer periods, although there are [flimsy] claims of astronomical influences.
lsvalgaard says:
February 11, 2014 at 6:32 am
“There is a ~100 year quasi-period [probably not stable and may range from 80 to 120 years].”
Interestingly there is some support for a period of this sort timescale in my combined plot.
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/200YearsofTemperatureSatelliteThermometerandProxy_zpsd17a97c0.gif
I have dropped out the >75 year filter on this particular example but a possible part cycle of just this sort of length is visible in the shorter HadCrut only data.
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/HadCrut4Monthly11575Lowpass1575SGExtensions_zps48569a45.gif
I also have support for a 90-100 year weather cycle, 50 years of warming followed by 50 years of warming as observed from earth (e.g. flooding of the Nile, Pirana, possibly even other rivers, to be further investigated)
8 years either way from the zero edge is the “pause”, (this is now!) where there appears to be little movement in temperature and weather.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
All I say to that, is that there is a lag from energy-in to energy out. So it is (mainly) the Gleissberg that determines this apparent weather cycle.
Thre decades of cooling is coming up.
Are you (we) ready?
[“The decade” or “Three decades” ? Mod]
sorry about the typo’s
here the corrected version
I also have support for a 90-100 year weather cycle, 50 years of warming followed by 50 years of cooling as observed from earth (e.g. flooding of the Nile, Pirana, possibly even other rivers, to be further investigated)
8 years either way from the zero edge is the “pause”, (this is now!) where there appears to be little movement in temperature and weather.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
All I say to that, is that there is a lag from energy-in to energy out. So it is (mainly) the Gleissberg that determines this apparent weather cycle.
Three decades of cooling is coming up.
Are you (we) ready?
Willis Eschenbach says:
February 10, 2014 at 9:16 pm
“I don’t understand that at all. Tau and omega are presumably constants. If tau * w = 100, then
output = input / 10001”
No, it is a function of w.
Write P as
P = cos(0*t) + 100*cos(w*t)
Plug in the values for w for the respective components. For the first, it is w = 0. The first component is thus 10001 times more prevalent in the output.
This is how a frequency response works. The formula for E is that which is obtained from a simple lag system
tau*xdot = -x + f
The frequency response is
x(jw) = f(jw)/(tau*jw + 1)
P is the magnitude squared of f and E is the magnitude squared of x. Thus, you get
E = P/((tau*w) + 1)
as stated.
This is all very straightforward and elementary systems theory.
I may be confusing things with my shorthand. Those of us in the field take this all for granted, but I should probably spell it out. Expanding the formula
E = cos(0*t)/(1 + 0*w) + 100*cos(w*t)/(1 + 100)
rats…
E = cos(0*t)/(1 + 0*tau) + 100*cos(w*t)/(1 + 100)
bother…
E = cos(0*t)/(1 + 0*tau) + 100*cos(w*t)/(1 + 100^2)
Sorry – juggling a phone call…
E = cos(0*t)/(1 + (0*tau)^2) + 100*cos(w*t)/(1 + 100)
E = cos(0*t)/(1 + (0*tau)^2) + 100*cos(w*t)/(1 + 100^2)
@ Bart
are you sure now?
Bart says:
February 11, 2014 at 9:39 am (while correcting his correction to the first incorrection incorrectly)
Don’t bug Bart. He is juggling cats and herding phone calls.
RACookPE1978 says:
February 11, 2014 at 9:57 am
“Don’t bug Bart. He is juggling cats and herding phone calls.”
And missing the ‘edit after you post’ button that my re-reading of what I have just posted to the world has me often looking for!!
I CAN type/spell damn it – it’s just my fingers can’t.
Yes, that is it.
And, I should have written in the original reply the originally given equation
E = P/((tau*w)^2 + 1)
Probably should have broken things up into different variables.
P = cos(0*t) + 100*cos(w1*t)
E = P/(1 + (tau*w)^2) evaluated at the frequencies of the component inputs
= cos(0*t)/(1 + (0*tau)^2) + 100*cos(w1*t)/(1 + (tau*w1)^2)
with tau*w1 = 100
= cos(0*t)/(1 + (0*tau)^2) + 100*cos(w1*t)/(1 + 100^2)
= 1 + 0.01*cos(w1*t)
@Bart
you have all these equations in your head?
I battled with geometry
You have to show me the graphic, the equations tell me nothing…
(I did not even pick up any errors….)
I messed up the example by trying to make it too simple. Gimme a little time, and I’ll fix it.
Bart, after all of your equations, I still have no idea what you’re trying to say. Above all, you haven’t even touched the questions I raised. To remind you, they were:
it’s even more bizarre, because you say that
I guessed that tau was a constant, but you said in response that it was a function of w … but you never said what the function was.
A real-life, actual physical climate related example of what you are trying to say would be of much more use … at present, you’re way off into equationland, which is always fascinating to me, but which may have no application in the world of climate.
So … do you have an actual climate-related example of what you are trying to explain? Because if you don’t have such a real-world example … then why are we discussing this?
Still in mystery,
w.
Let the system response be
tau*xdot = -x + f
Let
f = 1 + 10*sin(w1*t)
The input power is the mean square over a cycle
P = mean( (1 + 14.14*sin(w1*t))^2 ) = 1 + 100
most of which is coming from the sinusoidal term.
The output in the frequency domain is
x(jw) = f(jw)/sqrt(1 + (tau*w)^2)
which, in the steady state becomes in the time domain
x(t) = 1 + (10/sqrt(1 + (tau*w1)^2))*sin(w1*t+phi)
where phi is the phase response term. The output energy stored is the mean square over a cycle
E = mean(x(t)^2) = 1 + 100/(1 + (tau*w1)^2)
If tau*w1 = 100, then
E = 1 + 0.01
and the dominant component is from the small constant forcing term.
Here is a demonstration of the above.
Willis Eschenbach says:
February 11, 2014 at 10:48 am
Bart, after all of your equations, I still have no idea what you’re trying to say.
My take is that cycles don’t matter, it is the long-term background that wins out. Nothing strange about that, and no need to be obscurely fancy about it. For the solar-climate issue this translates into tiny solar cycle effects and an all-important role for large secular changes in the background energy input for which there is but scant evidence.
Willis Eschenbach says:
February 11, 2014 at 10:48 am
“I guessed that tau was a constant, but you said in response that it was a function of w … “
No, I said the transfer function 1/(1 + (tau*w)^2) is a function of w.
The point is this: different components of an input signal have different transmission through a system response.
I gave as an example the system described by the equation
tau*xdot = -x + f
This is a very simple, 1st order differential equation which might be used, e.g., to describe the temperature of a pot of water put on the stove, e.g., as here.
In my example, which is merely for illustration, the period of the sinusoidal forcing was 10 years, and the time constant was 160 years. 2*pi/10 * 160 ~= 100.
The amplitude of the sinusoid was nearly 15X the constant input, and the power (mean square) 100X. Nevertheless, the constant term dominates the output.
In general terms, you can have all kinds of system responses. You can have resonances and zeros, which would effectively zero out a particularly prominent input, while amplifying the input at the resonance. You can have all kinds of things. I have not yet seen an analysis which indicates that we genuinely have a handle on the overall system response.
Leif says
My take is that cycles don’t matter, it is the long-term background that wins out. Nothing strange about that, and no need to be obscurely fancy about it.
Henry says
Here is the thing that I figured out from my own investigations
It is the planets of our solar system that work together throwing the switch in the sun
-God forbid anything if anything happens to any of them –
God has made it so because otherwise there would actually be runaway global warming or runaway global cooling all the time. There had to be a brakes on the whole system, preventing either. There is no manmade global warming. There is only Godmade global warming and – global cooling. We must just be prepared for what is coming.
I am not the only one who figured this out. William Arnold has found exactly the same as I did in 1985.Now I remember that Leif called his paper “junk”, so I am not interested in discussing the paper with him.
What I would be interested in know is: whatever happened to William Arnold?
Does anyone know?
Willis Eschenbach says:
February 11, 2014 at 10:48 am
This is why discussing this stuff with you guys is so damn hard. Yes, Bart, you did say that. I said that tau was presumably a constant. Here’s your reply to my saying that tau was a constant:
Bart says:
February 11, 2014 at 9:25 am
Finally, as I said, after all your equations I still don’t know what you are trying to say. Please point us to some actual climate-related or other natural phenomenon or system that behaves in the manner you are talking about, so we can have a real-life example to discuss.
w.