New paper finds the climate to be 'highly nonlinear'

But, we already knew that from experience. However, a lot of models still treat climate as a mostly or near linear process, and that’s why they aren’t performing particularly well at even predicting the present.

(via the Hockeyschtick) A paper published July in Science says “the climate system can be highly nonlinear, meaning that small changes in one part can lead to much larger changes elsewhere.”

“Some proposed mechanisms for transmission of major climate change events between the North Pacific and North Atlantic predict opposing patterns of variations; others suggest synchronization. Resolving this conflict has implications for regulation of poleward heat transport and global climate change.”

“When the climates of the more local high-latitude Pacific and Atlantic sectors varied in parallel, large, abrupt climate fluctuations occurred on a more global scale.”

One of many examples would be the interactions of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation [PDO] and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation [AMO], which are sometimes aligned in the same positive phase to produce abrupt global warming, sometimes aligned in the same negative phase to produce abrupt global cooling, and sometimes in opposite phases which “cancel” their net global effect.

Systems which are “highly nonlinear” and chaotic are extremely difficult to impossible to predict or model. The projections of current climate models show that the models really boil down to just a simplistic 1:1 linear function of CO2 levels:

Needless to say, modeling the “highly nonlinear” and chaotic global climate system using a linear function of a single independent variable – CO2 – is nonsense and an essentially worthless exercise. Damaging the entire global economy and basing policy decisions upon such models is pure insanity.

From the AAAS Journal: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6195/444.short

Science 25 July 2014: Vol. 345 no. 6195 pp. 444-448 DOI: 10.1126/science.1252000

Abstract:

Some proposed mechanisms for transmission of major climate change events between the North Pacific and North Atlantic predict opposing patterns of variations; others suggest synchronization. Resolving this conflict has implications for regulation of poleward heat transport and global climate change. New multidecadal-resolution foraminiferal oxygen isotope records from the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) reveal sudden shifts between intervals of synchroneity and asynchroneity with the North Greenland Ice Core Project (NGRIP) δ18O record over the past 18,000 years. Synchronization of these regions occurred 15,500 to 11,000 years ago, just prior to and throughout the most abrupt climate transitions of the last 20,000 years, suggesting that dynamic coupling of North Pacific and North Atlantic climates may lead to critical transitions in Earth’s climate system.


 

Editor’s Summary:

Climates conspire together to make big changes

The regional climates of the North Pacific and North Atlantic fluttered between synchrony and asynchrony during the last deglaciation, with correspondingly more and less intense effects on the rest of the world, researchers have found. The climate system can be highly nonlinear, meaning that small changes in one part can lead to much larger changes elsewhere. This type of behavior is especially evident during transitions from glacial to interglacial conditions, when climate is affected by a wide variety of time-varying influences and is relatively unstable. Praetorius and Mix present a record of North Pacific climate over the past 18,000 years. When the climates of the more local high-latitude Pacific and Atlantic sectors varied in parallel, large, abrupt climate fluctuations occurred on a more global scale.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Greg Goodman

“But, we already knew that from experience. However, a lot of models still treat climate as a mostly or near linear process, and that’s why they aren’t performing particularly well at even predicting the present.”
Care needs to be taken not confound two different things. Some individual climate phenomena are highly non-linear ( like tropical storms which have strong internal positive feedbacks ) . That does not prevent the cumulative regional effect of TS on SST being a negative , probably roughly linear feedback.
IMO that is not the principal reason why computer models are near useless at present.

Bloke down the pub

Non-linear. So the theory that just adding CO₂ increases global temps may not be correct after all. Who knew?

Greg Goodman

The main reason models are not working is that the whole venture was set out to ‘prove’ a foregone conclusion and data have been ‘corrected’ to fall into line with that worldview.
None of this has anything to do with science and has wasted most of the effort and resources of the last 30 years.
Volcanic effects have been grossly mis-calculated and misinterpreted. Beyond the initial surface cooling that lasts just a few years, there is an opposite and more durable effect. This is most clearly seen in the stratosphere, where there is a lot less climate “noise”:
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/wp-admin/upload.php?item=902
Stratosphere cools after major eruptions and stays cooler. Follow links in the text for how this relates to surface warming.

North Atlantic indices also display so called ‘non-stationary’ correlation, ie the ‘time domain’ is stretched and squeezed by number of years (mind boggles!). When that is taken into account then the related parameters ( here atmospheric pressure and SST ) can be brought into a linear (time domain) correlation.

Greg Goodman

The initial cooling of volcanic forcing as estimated from atmospheric optical density measurements has been ‘adjusted’ to fit model output:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=884
The original Lacis et al paper ( on which Hansen was a co-author ) did an estimation based on atmospheric physics and observational data most from El Chichon eruption. They scaled AOD by 33 W/m2
A few years later the same team changed this to 21 W/m2 in order to better agree with model output
The correct scientific approach would have been to reduce the sensitivity of the model to agree with the data.
This would avoid the excessive warming post 2000 which failed to materialise.
I really don’t think the major problems are to do with non linearity.

phlogiston

New study finds the Pope to be Catholic.

sleepingbear dunes

I would have thought this kind of paper with its conclusion would have come out several decades ago and every “climate 101” class would have referenced it. It is all so self evident I am befuddled. Maybe it will be the basis for a new generation of “excuse” papers for the pause. I am just a rookie having followed the issue closely for only 6 years or so, but the developments over that period certainly confirm a lot more of the skeptics view than the warmists view. This “non-linear” concept was about the first thing I learned from reading comments by skeptics.

Greg Goodman

Oops, posted a link to the TLS that is not publicly readable:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=902
“Stratosphere cools after major eruptions and stays cooler. Follow links in the text for how this relates to surface warming.”

AndyL

So the paper says
“the climate system can be highly nonlinear, meaning that small changes in one part can lead to much larger changes elsewhere.”
Of course, they could also have written “the climate system can be highly nonlinear, meaning changes can be self-correcting” but for some reason they chose not to.

M Seward

You mean systems with multiple variables, complex and interacting susbsystems with numerous oscillating and resonating elements and which can include both positive and negative feedbacks related to a parameter and rates of change of parameters might be NON LINEAR?????
OMG, my paradigm just shifted. Where’s my mommy?

In a way it’s quite disturbing that one still has to publish papers stating the obvious.

The HockeyShtick writes: “One of many examples would be the interactions of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation [PDO] and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation [AMO]…”
If the use of the PDO is a referral to the PDO data available through the JISAO website, there is no mechanism through which the PDO (the spatial pattern of the sea surface temperature anomalies of the extratropical North Pacific) alters global surface temperatures since the PDO does not represent the surface temperatures of that region in the North Pacific. The PDO only represents the spatial pattern. For further info see:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/04/20/the-201415-el-nino-part-5-the-relationship-between-the-pdo-and-enso/
If the use of the PDO in the article is a reference to the multidecadal variations in the sea surface temperatures of the North Pacific, which do run in and out of phase with those of the North Atlantic…
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/multidecadal-variations-and-sea-surface-temperature-reconstructions/
…then the variations in the North Pacific do contribute to or suppress global warming, like the AMO. But the use of the PDO that way adds unnecessary confusion to those new to the topic.

phlogiston

Greg
Nonlinear does not just mean the relationship between parameters a and b is not a straight line. It is much more than that. At the heart of what it means for climate is this:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281963%29020%3C0130%3ADNF%3E2.0.CO%3B2
DNF 63 is in my view the starting point of meaningful climate science. It showed, by one of tbe very first and still probably the most important climate computer simulation, that a simple model of climate with just a handful of inputs, displaying nonlinear chaotic dynamics, as it evolved will fluctuate in a complex manner with no change to its external parameters .
Reflection on the significance of DNF63 by Lorenz will show how deeply problematic the term “forcing” is in climate science. It will reveal that for any climate change, the null hypothesis is that the climate has changed itself without the need of any external forcing.

Greg Goodman

” Assessing bias corrections in historical sea surface temperature using a climate model, Folland”
ftp://ftp.wmo.int/Documents/PublicWeb/amp/mmop/documents/JCOMM-TR/J-TR-13-Marine-Climatology/REV1/joc1171.pdf
“The tests are important because SST corrections considerably affect estimates of the magnitude of global warming since the late 19th century. ”
” Over Australia, the model may have reconstructed LSAT changes using bias-corrected GISST with greater accuracy than the observations before about 1910.”
So feeding ‘corrected’ SST into an atmospheric model does not agree with observations, but that “may” mean that the observations are wrong and the corrections and model have “greater accuracy”.
… or maybe not.
And this is what passes as “validation” of the bias corrections to SST. We are long way from worrying about non-linearities in the system. The whole game is being rigged to fit their preconceptions.

dccowboy

I thought the IPCC already stated in it’s many reports that climate was a complex, non-linear, chaotic system? Doesn’t it seem that this paper is redundant?

Alan the Brit

So, you type in at one end, “show a rise in temperature for added CO2!”, & out the business end you get, “temperature increase if more CO2 added!”, it must therefore be right!!! Wow, what great deductive reasoning.
phlogiston says:
July 25, 2014 at 3:34 am
New study finds the Pope to be Catholic.
Does the Pope know? Was this the result of a model?

Greg Goodman

Thanks phlogiston, it’s worth keeping in mind the way a deterministic but ‘chaotic’ system behaves. Lorentzian attractors may be a good explanation for the irregular flips between glacial and inter-glacial, as well as other smaller scale glitches like the Pacific climate shift around 1976.
Even something as trivial as “random walk” can produce time series that are very similar looking to some climate data.
However, there a certain things that can be seen to have a direct physical cause that it does not need chaos theory to explain.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=902

Greg Goodman

dccowboy says: “I thought the IPCC already stated in it’s many reports that climate was a complex, non-linear, chaotic system? Doesn’t it seem that this paper is redundant?”
They put that is thier 2001 report that climate was chaotic and could be predicted… and this did. They’ve gone a bit quiet on that aspect since.

Climate appears ‘nonlinear’ not because it is fundamentally nonlinear. The ‘observation’ that climate is nonlinear just proves our ignorance.
The paper simply conveys that scientists are not intelligent enough to predict climate changes but in a nice way.
http://www.debunkingrelativity.com

Volcanic activity seems to correlate with low solar activity:
http://www.iceagenow.com/Volcanic_activity_increasing_worldwide.htm
Why do I keep mentioning volcanoes?
Because ice ages correlate with huge increases in volcanic activity.

http://www.debate.org/photos/albums/1/2/1258/32577-1258-uvv5z-a.jpg

phlogiston says:
July 25, 2014 at 4:07 am
Habibullo Abdussamatov has identified 2014 as the first year cooling will be identifiable. Last year he was more tentative. This year he is definite. Visit this page
http://www.oarval.org/ClimateChangeBW.htm
And look for this image:
“Figure 1. Variations of both the TSI and solar activity in 1978-2013 and prognoses of these variations to cycles 24-27 until 2045. The arrow indicates the beginning of the new Little Ice Age epoch after the maximum of cycle 24.”

Volcanic activity also seems to correlate with solar activity in the latest interglacial:
http://www.debate.org/photos/albums/1/2/1258/32577-1258-uvv5z-a.jpg

“Before it is safe to attribute a global warming or a global cooling effect to any other factor (CO2 in particular) it is necessary to disentangle the simultaneous overlapping positive and negative effects of solar variation, PDO/ENSO and the other oceanic cycles. Sometimes they work in unison, sometimes they work against each other and until a formula has been developed to work in a majority of situations all our guesses about climate change must come to nought.”
from here:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/the-real-link-between-solar-energy-ocean-cycles-and-global-temperature/
May 21, 2008
Note that I agree with Bob Tisdale who points out that instead of referring to PDO in this context we should really refer to the Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation (PMO)

Roy Hartwell

Jeez…how much do we pay these people to come up with The Bleeding Obvious !!!!!

Greg Goodman

M Simon says:
Volcanic activity also seems to correlate with solar activity in the latest interglacial:
http://www.debate.org/photos/albums/1/2/1258/32577-1258-uvv5z-a.jpg
That’s not a “correlation” , it’s a picture !
If you have evidence of a correlation please post it, not crappy hand made graphics which actually show nothing and can be read however you want to read them.

Anthony Watts
Posted on July 25, 2014:
Systems which are “highly nonlinear” and chaotic are extremely difficult to impossible to predict or model.
Needless to say, modeling the “highly nonlinear” and chaotic global climate system using a linear function of a single independent variable – CO2 – is nonsense and an essentially worthless exercise.

—————–
Right you are, …. and one would have no better success with the impossible task of modeling the “highly nonlinear” and chaotic path of a single (1) Pachinko “ball”, …. to wit:
A pachinko machine resembles a vertical pinball machine, but has no flippers and uses a large number of small balls. The player fires balls into the machine, which then cascade down through a dense forest of pins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pachinko
——————-
Thus, it really was/is, …. “pure insanity”, …. if their original intent was to create realistic and/or accurate computer modeling software for predicting future climate conditions.
Me thinks that Willis E’s “emergent phenomenon” are akin to having ….. dozens of bugs n’ viruses …… scattered throughout the software code of said computer model.

Greg Goodman

Bob Tisdale:
“If the use of the PDO is a referral to the PDO data available through the JISAO website, there is no mechanism through which the PDO (the spatial pattern of the sea surface temperature anomalies of the extratropical North Pacific) alters global surface temperatures since the PDO does not represent the surface temperatures of that region in the North Pacific. The PDO only represents the spatial pattern. ”
Oh, here we go again.
PDO is a time series. One value for each date so it is not a “spacial pattern” since it contains no spacial data. It is time and temperature data only.
A map of correlations with PDO is a spacial but NOT a time series. Neither is it a particularly constant map when calculated at different dates, so that would be a variable spacial pattern. Again that is quite distinct from PDO being a spacial pattern.
In the sense that it is temperature difference ( SST of a geographic area of N.Pacific minus global average ) , some care is needed in inferring what physical effects it may have.
Since there are a large (variable) areas that appear to correlate ( or anti-correlate ) with PDO, It is probably more sensible to regard it as a symptom rather than a cause. As an ‘index’ of something else that does have global scale impact on temperatures but not necessarily in the same direction in different places. .

JJM Gommers

Peculiar curve, normally for each ppm CO2 increment the temperature increase should be smaller, especially in the tropics. At higher latitude there should be one which is straight, in the polar regions the temperature increase would be progressive. But overall, because of the surface areas, the effect
should show an initial steep rise and a gradual decrease in slope and finally approaching an asymptotic value at high CO2 concentrations.
Can somebody explain me if I am correct??!

Eliza

Keep a real close eye on this
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php It is possible that the AGW powers to be will insist that DMI close down or not post this graph. It really would be a major major blow to the whole AGW theory

KevinM

Highly nonlinear systems that stay in stable state for 1000s of years? If it is nonlinear, then it must be slammed at a rail.
We must get either weather “like this” weather “like ice age”, rendering runaway global warming about impossible if it hasn’t been seen in 1 billion years.

““But, we already knew that from experience. However, a lot of models still treat climate as a mostly or near linear process, and that’s why they aren’t performing particularly well at even predicting the present.”
Care needs to be taken not confound two different things. Some individual climate phenomena are highly non-linear ( like tropical storms which have strong internal positive feedbacks ) . That does not prevent the cumulative regional effect of TS on SST being a negative , probably roughly linear feedback.
IMO that is not the principal reason why computer models are near useless at present.”
#############################
Yes when the story starts with a declarations of why models dont work I’m relatively sure that whoever wrote it is stupid.

Eustace Cranch

Highly nonlinear systems that stay in stable state for 1000s of years? If it is nonlinear, then it must be slammed at a rail.
Chaotic systems typically have islands of stability. Look at bifurcation diagrams. Chaos can be, and usually is, bounded.
And of course if you zoom out far enough things look smoother.

Greg Goodman

AndyL says:
July 25, 2014 at 3:49 am
So the paper says
“the climate system can be highly nonlinear, meaning that small changes in one part can lead to much larger changes elsewhere.”
Of course, they could also have written “the climate system can be highly nonlinear, meaning changes can be self-correcting” but for some reason they chose not to.
====
Indeed, it is easy to arrive at some sort of scientific fatalism, that we cannot make any predictions about climate nor make any attributions.
Drawing vague correlations over century long time series with huge measurement uncertainties, sampling bias, and “bias correction” bias , this may be the case.
However, attributions derived from short term variations drawn from recent higher quality data are less prone to this problem. That I what I have linked to above.

M Seward says:
July 25, 2014 at 3:56 am
You mean systems with multiple variables, complex and interacting susbsystems with numerous oscillating and resonating elements and which can include both positive and negative feedbacks related to a parameter and rates of change of parameters might be NON LINEAR?????

Equally a very simple system can be non-linear,e.g. the Lotka-Volterra system is just two equations and two variables. However a very complex system of chemical kinetic equations with non-linear terms can also be very predictable.

Greg Goodman

Kevin, “chaos” in mathematics does not mean the same thing as in common language, ie total disorder. The Lorentz attractor, that I mentioned above shows a behaviour that may well apply to the glacial / inter-glacial pattern or geologically ‘recent’ climate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_system
It’s is totally deterministic, generated by differential equations, no random numbers being added.

Rolo

So, finally people got to read the Lorenz 1963 paper … 😉 A little late, no ? …

Jim G

Greg Goodman says:
More importantly, climate is not only non-linear it is also non-predictable since there are many causal variables in the mix which are themselves not predictable with current technology and may never be predictable, though never is a long time. When, and with what strength, some of these variables come into play can determine the end result of climatic conditions. Some of these variables are not even quantified, like total heat added to the oceans by under sea volcanic activity at any given time. Much of the “scientific” analysis broadcast, both pro and con climate change or global warming or whatever the hell it is presently called, is swinging at mosquitoes with statistical sledge hammers and of little meaning or consequence beyond the harm done to our world economy by politicians using such to redistribute income..

john robertson

Mark twain springs to mind.
Endless speculations from such small facts.
Climatology is the speculation of linear trends from cyclic and chaotic weather patterns.
Or non patterns. As in “seeing information in white noise.
The value of these linear trends was demonstrated by the tides; “If the tide continues to rise at its incoming rate, the world will be submerged by Next Easter.”
(Some conditions may apply).
Bottom line, the data does not support the speculation.
The obsessive fascination, with picking authoritive linear trends from a sine wave, on the part of Climatology is amazing.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)

From Greg Goodman on July 25, 2014 at 6:21 am

Oh, here we go again.
PDO is a time series. One value for each date so it is not a “spacial pattern” since it contains no spacial data. It is time and temperature data only.

How breathtakingly ignorant of you.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections/pdo.php

In parallel with the ENSO phenomenon, the extreme phases of the PDO have been classified as being either warm or cool, as defined by ocean temperature anomalies in the northeast and tropical Pacific Ocean. When SSTs are anomalously cool in the interior North Pacific and warm along the Pacific Coast, and when sea level pressures are below average over the North Pacific, the PDO has a positive value. When the climate anomaly patterns are reversed, with warm SST anomalies in the interior and cool SST anomalies along the North American coast, or above average sea level pressures over the North Pacific, the PDO has a negative value (Courtesy of Mantua, 1999).

It’s what happens where that determines the PDO Index. When the PDO is positive that indicates warm SST’s along the Pacific Coast. As seen, the spatial data is there.
And learn how to stick to normal expected spellings. “Spacial” may be a variant spelling of spatial, but then bitzes is also a variant. Stop the madness!

Exactly my point do not expect an x change in the climate from given x changes in items that control the climate. This I have preached but with little fanfare.

The initial state of the global climate.
a. how close or far away is the global climate to glacial conditions if in inter- glacial, or how close is the earth to inter- glacial conditions if in a glacial condition.
b. climate was closer to the threshold level between glacial and inter- glacial 20,000 -10,000 years ago. This is why I think the climate was more unstable then. Example solar variability and all items would be able to pull the climate EASIER from one regime to another when the state of the climate was closer to the inter glacial/glacial dividing line, or threshold.
The upshot being GIVEN solar variability is not going to have the same given climatic impact.
.
. Solar variability and the associated primary and secondary effects. Lag times, degree of magnitude change and duration of those changes must be taken into account.
Up shot being a given grand solar minimum period is not always going to have the same climatic impact.
This is why solar/climate correlations are hard to come by UNLESS the state of solar activity goes from a very active state to a very prolonged quiet state which is what has happened during year 2005.

This (in the above)does not just apply to solar but all of the items that influence the climate. Thresholds are also out there and this is why in large part a model approach to predicting climate change is an exercise in futility. Past historical data is much more reliable for my money.
Not to mention incomplete and inaccurate data and different sets of data form the same items.

What we are all doing here is coming up with reasons( lunar included) that probably are all playing a role in the climate. I think noise in the climate system makes it exceptionally hard to see the reasons we claim that effect the climate are so. In addition to noise the climate system often will have factors going on at the same time which are trying to throw the climate in a different direction and some of these factors at times exert a bigger influence then at other times on the climate and sometimes some of these factors can bring the climate to a threshold which then really makes it next to impossible to see how the other factors are still influencing the climate.
At the same time the given beginning state of the climate is constantly in flux which then either enhances or moderates all the factors that are playing a role in the climate.
The end result is we have a discussion with many points of view.
My best shot once again which I am sure some will agree with , disagree with or half way agree with.
These four factors either combined or in some combination are responsible for all the climate changes on earth. If one agrees with this then one will also have to agree that global climate change is synchronous.
MY FOUR FACTORS
The initial state of the global climate.
a. how close or far away is the global climate to glacial conditions if in inter- glacial, or how close is the earth to inter- glacial conditions if in a glacial condition.
b. climate was closer to the threshold level between glacial and inter- glacial 20,000 -10,000 years ago. This is why I think the climate was more unstable then. Example solar variability and all items would be able to pull the climate EASIER from one regime to another when the state of the climate was closer to the inter glacial/glacial dividing line, or threshold.
..
Solar variability and the associated primary and secondary effects. Lag times, degree of magnitude change and duration of those changes must be taken into account. I have come up with criteria . I will pass it along, why not in my next email.
a. solar irradiance changes- linked to ocean heat content.
b. cosmic ray changes- linked to clouds.
c. volcanic activity- correlated to stratospheric warming changing which will impact the atmospheric circulation.
d. UV light changes -correlated to ozone which then can be linked to atmospheric circulation changes.
e. atmospheric changes – linked to ocean current changes including ENSO, and thermohaline circulation.
f. atmospheric changes -linked also to albedo changes due to snow cover, cloud cover , and precipitation changes.
g. thickness of thermosphere – which is linked to other levels of the atmosphere.
Strength of the magnetic field of the earth. This can enhance or moderate changes associated with solar variability.
a. weaker magnetic field can enhance cosmic rays and also cause them to be concentrated in lower latitudes where there is more moisture to work with to be more effective in cloud formation if magnetic poles wander south due to magnetic excursions in a weakening magnetic field overall.
Milankovitch Cycles. Where the earth is at in relation to these cycles as far as how elliptic or not the orbit is, the tilt of the axis and precession.
.a. less elliptic, less tilt, earth furthest from sun during N.H. summer — favor cooling.
I feel what I have outlined for the most part is not being taken as a serious possible solution as to why the climate changes. Rather climate change is often trying to be tied with terrestrial changes and worse yet only ONE ITEM , such as CO2 or ENSO which is absurdity.
Over time not one of these one item explanations stand up, they can not explain all of the various climatic changes to all the different degrees of magnitude and duration of time each one different from the previous one. Each one UNIQUE.
.Examples would be the sudden start/end of the Oldest, Older and Younger Dryas dramatic climate shifts, the 8200 year ago cold period, and even the sudden start of the Little Ice Age following the Medieval Warm Period.
.

leon0112

President Obama used linear models to call others members of the Flat Earth Society.

DirkH

drgsrinivas says:
July 25, 2014 at 4:40 am
“Climate appears ‘nonlinear’ not because it is fundamentally nonlinear. The ‘observation’ that climate is nonlinear just proves our ignorance.”
Nonsense. Nonlinear is not a term from sociology. It is clearly defined. A system is nonlinear when the superposition of two input frequencies does not lead to the superposition of those two frequencies at the output, but to something else. Well at least that would be one way of defining it.

richard verney

Eliza says:
July 25, 2014 at 6:44 am
/////////////////
I guess it probably depends upon the weather up there over the next few weeks, but if it were to cross the 1979/2000 average, I bet there would be strong pressure brought upon MSM not to report on that: Antartic ice at a high, and Arctic ice above the 1979/2000 average both at the same time! And then perhaps a harsh NH winter, it could be interesting.
As you rightly say, a close eye should be kept on this season’s recovery
Stand ready to hear something about a sensor error, algorithm error etc..

richard verney

Eustace Cranch says:
July 25, 2014 at 7:06 am
////////////////////
But one problem is that we are zooming in.
If you were to zoom out and put CO2 in the context of Earth’s history, or today’s temperatures in the context of Earth’s history (and on an absolute not anomaly basis), then of course the present bluster would be lost, because you would be hard pressed to see late 20th century change.

Greg Goodman

Eliza says:
July 25, 2014 at 6:44 am
Keep a real close eye on this
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php It is possible that the AGW powers to be will insist that DMI close down or not post this graph. It really would be a major major blow to the whole AGW theory
======
Yes, this is a little strange. Antarctic sea ice was showing a similar glitch, that was covered here a few days ago. I just did a data grab from NOAA and the NH is not showing the same glitch , contrary to what you pointed out at DMI.
It seems someone thinks NH need correcting and SH not so much.
If anyone has a data source for DMI grab a copy quick, and to a screen cap of their graph.
Goal posts may be due for repositioning. ….

richard verney says:
July 25, 2014 at 9:31 am
Eustace Cranch says:
July 25, 2014 at 7:06 am
////////////////////
But one problem is that we are zooming in.
If you were to zoom out and put CO2 in the context of Earth’s history, or today’s temperatures in the context of Earth’s history
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Here is a real easy link to demonstrate the “zoom in” problem:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_hi-def3.gif

Eustace Cranch

richard verney says:
July 25, 2014 at 9:31 am
Exactly.