The DDP Conference

Looking at the date on the Oregon Petition (1997) and its original “purpose” (Kyoto) says perhaps to counter the 97% “Consensus” argument, we need a new similar petition? It would give CAGW’ers a target with something to discredit and burn off some of their energy in the process?

@Willis
I have something to offer that you might consider an extension of your hypothesized tropical thunderstorm thermostatic control mechanism™ which I find very convincing. All of what follows is from the science of viscoelasticity.
Suppose we experience a change in global or regional temperature, which, let’s suppose, has the form of a sine wave. There is a delayed cooling response by the atmosphere to an increase in temperature through the mechanism of thunderstorms and an increase in cloud cover, which I recall you showed kicks in about 8 months later. Let’s assume this is correct. It is a system with characteristics of a damped, governed response that shows evidence of hysteresis, overshoot and recovery. No problem so far.
It is a fundamental property of the responses of materials, which includes just about everything, in that the effectiveness of the response by the governing mechanism is strongly affected by the temperature of the material (atmosphere, water and water vapour) and the frequency of the applied change applied. This capacity to respond differently with a change in frequency is not obvious by studying the system, even in detail, in what appears to be a steady an equilibrium state. It is a dynamic property of all materials. It is a response, at a certain frequency characteristic of the material, providing, suddenly, a much stronger governing response.
A change in effectiveness is evident at all frequencies, though material scientists are often looking at things on the order of a few Hz to a few hundred Hz. Large, slow, gaseous and highly elastic systems like the atmosphere respond at much lower frequencies than, say, rubber. But respond it will.
There are spring-and-dash-pot models of how systems respond to a change made at a given frequency or temperature and they can be quite accurately modeled and projected across temperature-space or frequency-space. Using super-position, frequency-space responses can be projected across temperature-space and vice-versa. Two major model types are the Kelvin and Voigt spring and dashpot models and, among others, there is a combo called the 4-element model. These are used to predict the reaction of materials to an input (disturbance) at a given frequency at a particular temperature. Creep testing uses the same models since creep is a property that manifests at a very low frequency.
It is well known that the effectiveness of the damping response to a change in input for any given frequency can be suddenly stronger at a temperature, but only in a particular and narrow range. Outside that temperature and narrow frequency range, the response delay time (called Tau) is pretty constant at two different levels on either side of the critical temperature level. For a given frequency, this means that the delay time (called Tau) which can correspond to a number of degrees ‘out of phase’ is pretty much one value constant across a low temperature range, then suddenly experiences a sharp, extremely efficient damping effect, followed by a different, almost constant delay at all temperatures above that critical point. The implications for the climate are significant because this could explain both the initiation of ice ages and Bond Events. Your study showed a dramatic increase in the effectiveness of damping when the sea temperature reached 31 degrees. Your observations and data plots are consistent with this analysis.
The ratio of the input signal frequency (the frequency of the disturbance of the temperature) to the damping effect response to the magnitude of the input the governing mechanism spikes strongly at a particular combination of temperature and frequency. In other words, the cloud-mediated cooling suddenly, dramatically, increases in effectiveness and maybe even overshoots once a critical temperature is reached. At a different temperature, the same spike can be observed but only if a different frequency of the disturbance is ‘matched’ to the new temperature. The ratio E* of input returned energy E” to response lost energy E’ is denoted Tan Delta (δ).
If you make one the X and the other the Y axis of a right triangle, Tanδ = E”/E’ and is maximized when the governing (damping) effect is suddenly, dramatically enhanced. It is a latent property of the material. An common example of this is a rubber ball that when dropped from a height at room temperature has virtually no bounce. The material is tuned so the impact and temperature are ‘just right’ to absorb the energy with virtually no ‘return’. If dropped on a really cold day, it will bounce far higher.
The obvious conclusion is that such a tropical thunderstorm governing system as you have proposed for the auto-regulation of global temperature will operate on the same principles of effect-response as viscoelastic materials and will appear as inexplicable, chaotic, even mysterious responses. In fact such a ‘tuned response’ is a fundamental property of all materials including the atmosphere. Even steel can be made to behave like a liquid at room temperature at just the right frequency. To some this is known as the ‘resonant frequency’.
My postulation is that the atmosphere behaves as a viscoelastic material, and that there are multiple inputs to the temperature forcing that are cyclical in nature, including ocean currents, solar cycles and orbital movements which all combine to provide different temperature forcing rates, which is to day, frequencies. These cycles combine to stimulate the ‘governor’ in such a way that there is a maximum average temperature for the planet, or the ocean, possibly 31°C, at which the dominant frequencies kick into life demonstrating a huge increase in the effectiveness of the thunderstorm governor, something already known to exist. To a lesser extent, these limits may be tangible at today’s lower temperatures.
If the frequency of the input perturbation were to change, or if the temperature were to change (up or down, we don’t know yet), the response by the thunderstorm and cloud cover mechanism might hit the sweet spot and dramatically over-cool the planet.
Some evidence for this latent property is that no matter what the CO2 level, no matter what the solar output historically, the average temperature of the planet never rose above 24°C. This is evidence of a governing mechanism with a non-linear relationship, spiking the ratio of the E” Input Loss modulus to the E’ Return Storage modulus creating a huge increase in cooling capacity, that to an uninformed observer, would be completely unexpected, impossible to anticipate. However, many materials are tested and selected (using a ‘DMA’) to find exactly these response points – hence the room-temperature ball that won’t bounce.
Although it is not immediately obvious, a single ball-drop impact can be viewed as having a ‘frequency’ equal to half a sine wave. This is normally calculated and thus a single impact, a single ‘forcing event’ can provoke the manifestation of the Maximum Tan Delta response. If you consider the ‘speed of the change forced upon the temperature of the atmosphere’ by the AO, AMO and PDO all conspiring to drop the atmospheric temperature at the same time, the delayed ‘warming effect’ allowed by the governor would be much stronger than normal (even though the governing mechanism is an evident characteristic of the system) resulting in a step up in temperature, something noted by Bob Tisdale. Similarly, a ‘just-right frequency’ of warming at the just-right-temperature could provoke an unusually strong cooling ‘overshoot’ depending on what the temperature was at the time. These responses are not chaotic nor random. They are just hard to find.
To date, the thunderstorm hypothesis has been presented as an approximately linear delayed governing response to a change of input. Very reasonable. But, natural ‘materials’ do not respond ‘about linearly’ at all frequencies, only ‘most frequencies’. At a given temperature and frequency of forcing (the variation in temperature) the governing mechanism pops some steroids and dramatically increases in effectiveness under the condition known as Max Tan Delta.
My prediction is that such a mechanism of damping enhancement will be shown to exist in Earth’s atmosphere. Under most frequency and temperature conditions the climate dampens perturbing influences thus maintaining a near-equilibrium temperature. It is is a characteristic of the atmospheric climate system and it has prevented the average 24°C level from being breached, at least not for the past couple of billion years, in spite of huge changes in GHG levels and a large increase in TSI. I further predict that the thunderstorm and cloud temperature-governing mechanism operates most effectively (with very large over-shoot) at a number of combinations of temperature and frequency of input. If only one of them could be known, the others can be inferred by calculation. All planets with atmospheres are likely to be in their own equilibrium states and susceptible to similar frequency/temperature dampening effects with trigger points that overwhelm even large changes in forcing creating generally stable conditions over the long term.

“”””””……Crispin in Waterloo says:
July 28, 2014 at 7:25 pm
@Willis
I have something to offer that you might consider an extension of your hypothesized tropical thunderstorm thermostatic control mechanism™ which I find very convincing. All of what follows is from the science of viscoelasticity…….”””””‘
When I went to school, visco-elasticity, was something else; and it wasn’t a property of ALL materials.
It was confined to “visco-elastic” materials, which are materials; some common like tar, which are fluids, rather than solids, so they have a “viscosity”, which of course can, and might be a function of temperature; but more importantly, the viscosity AT CONSTANT TEMPERATURE varies with the shear velocity, so they appear soft, if you press on them with your finger; but may appear rock hard, if you whack them with a hammer, (and could even shatter)
Well I believe the “Posturepedic” bed mattress is made of a visco-elastic material. You lie on it, and all your barnacles, press into thematerial till they reach a stable position. But if you squirm around at night, well all the bumps just move to somewhere else, but the bed still feels firm; unlike a jelly like water bed.
Wow ! Kevlar is a well known visco-elastic material. you can push it around like denim, but you shoot a bullet at it, and it stops it like steel would.
Which is why Kevlar makes truly lousy fishing rods; well unless you know where to put it, and where to not put it.
It also has lousy creep.
Regular Hooke’s law materials are not visco-elastic.

“””””….. Greg Goodman says:
July 28, 2014 at 5:28 pm
…………………………………..
“Emergent climate phenomena exhibit hysteresis, which shows that they are not feedbacks,”
Er, sorry. Hysteresis is the result of a positive feedback bounded by a stronger negative feedback. It causes latching to one state or another. You rightly say TS exhibit hysteresis but that does not mean they are not exhibiting feedbacks themselves (they are) and it tells us nothing , one way or the other, as to whether they are acting as a feedback on regional climate……..””””””
Well hysteresis is used to describe quite a few things; but I can’t say I have encountered it with regard to “feedback systems.”
The classic case of “Hysteresis” is the normal B-H loop of magnetic materials, as encountered in transformers and motors (any ferromagnetic machinery.
If a previously quite demagnetized ferro-magnetic material has an H field applied to it, by means of coils or windings, carrying a current, the magnetic flux density B (tesla) increases roughly proportional to the magnetic field strength H (A/m), and H = B /mu (permeability).
Eventually the relation becomes non-linear and B only increases slowly with increased H (mu drops).
If the current and H is now reduced, down to zero, B does not go to zero again, but remains at some high value (permanent magnet).
Ithe current and H is reversed, the “remanence” B value will stay high,until some negative H is reached, and B starts to decrease again rapidly., and eventually B goes to zero, and then increases in the opposite direction, repeating the above in reverse. A repeating cycle like this, drives the B-H values around a “hysteresis” envelope (curve), and the area of that hysteresis envelope directly represents an energy loss , which will manifest itself as a heating of the material.
Well that’s a very Rube Goldberg description of “magnetic Hysteresis”, which is more a case of the retrace lagging (B-H wise) behind the forward trace trajectory)
Mechanical engineers, will recognize that elastic materials (like steel), will also exhibit a hysteresis in their Hooke’s law forward and reverse cyclic behavior, when subjected to strains above the “linear range”
The material can still recover (slowly) its former dimensions, so long as you don’t go past the “elastic limit”. Well once again a cheapie explanation, but MEs will know what I’m talking about .
NO feedback, is involved, in either of these examples of hysteresis.
I suspect that chem ees (I ain’t one) could tell us about hysteresis in some “reversible” chemical processes. (No I can’t).
The governator (fly-ball) Willis described is likely non-linear; but nobody said control systems need to be linear. Often quite high end point non linearity, might be deliberately designed in, to ensure the regulator is always exerting control, even if weakly.
“Bang-bang” systems, where the regulator loses positive control, at the end points can be nasty; and maybe not nice to be around either.

Willis Eschenbach says:
One that caught my eye was a “flyball governor”,
Mark A says:
Many people believe the term “balls to the wall” came from aviation,
Yes, the term did come from aviation and it means full throttle. It did not come from the flyball governor.
The term “balls to the wall” (the knobs on the throttle pushed all the way forward to the bulkhead or wall) should not be confused with the term “Balls out”, which did come from the flyball governor. When the weights or flyballs or “balls” are horizontal, (the balls are as far out as they can get), the engine is going as fast as it can, hence the term “balls out” means going as fast as possible.
One has to do with throttle position, while the other has to do with speed.

Greg in someways right, but its precipitation that dictates what grows where. Without that natural H20, nothing lives long. But in the dry outback, red soil denotes iron content. Some regions do not get any rain for years, and then big down pours, it is amazing. Seeds of plants and some amphibians come to life, germinate, flower and seed, in just a few weeks. The frogs lay spawn, and some live long enough to grow, then burrow down in the mud until the next downpour. Admittedly our soils suited native fauna and plants. Without a cloven hoofed native animal, unlike in America and other parts of the world, pastures have been improved or destroyed in some areas as some don’t suit the environment where there is heavy rainfall. That’s why you see most dairy lactating cattle nearer the coast. Sheep don’t suit coastal areas, they tend to get more worms and foot rot. They are lacking in Lime in some areas, and to add fertilizers such as Super phosphate, is a short term band aid. (Rock phosphate is natural) In fact, it kills micro soil bacteria, so natural fertilizers are now the in thing. Including adding more organic material, that feeds the micro-organisms, and helps to retain moisture. (Plough back stalks and roots after harvesting) Soil tests are now the thing, and one has to keep the ratio of calcium (lime or dolomite) and magnesium balanced. And the p.H slightly acid. Where I live on the Northern Tablelands, was once a huge volcano or volcanoes, and the lava extent was massive giving us basalt soils. But with heavy tillage, and no ground cover, these soils have become very thin top soils and eroded. We can’t be complacent in Australia because of our precipitation erratic patterns. Lamb is very dear to buy, considering we grow it here. I branched out and bought 6 lamb cutlets the other day. $17.00. They were on special too. Usually something like 32.00 a kilo.

“Bang-bang” systems, where the regulator loses positive control, at the end points can be nasty; and maybe not nice to be around either.

This is actually what we called the Wood Freeman autopilot design.
Electric blankets and home thermostats are examples of control systems are are not or are barely closed circuit systems. Electric blankets are not because there is no sensor in the blanket – it is in the controller and is a best guess of what the blanket is doing. There is a simple anticipation pre-heater in there to take advantage of the excess heat in the blanket.
Thermostats (before digital) had anticipation built in in the form of a heat source that would heat the bi-metal temperature sensor. This allowed for efficient furnace operation where a great deal of heat is stored in the furnace while the burner is on and which would go up the chimney if the pre-heater in the thermostat didn’t cut off the burner well before the room air temperature accomplished the same. Digital systems like I worked with at Johnson Controls learn about building temperature response to energy input and outside/inside air temperature. The information is used to determine when to turn on the system prior to workers beginning their work day. It also anticipates when it can back off at end of shift.

In all this back and forth over “speed governors”, I saw no mention of the fundamental controls concept of governor “droop”. If you have a single prime mover/generator supplying load, “droop” is set to zero. That means any variation in system speed will result in a throttle response necessary to restore that system speed. Add load to a synchronous electric power system and the prime mover slows, indicating “under generation”. The governor detects that slowdown and kicks up the throttle to restore (in the case of a U.S. system) 60 hz. In doing so, the generator matches generation to load.
But what if you have a dozen prime mover/generators supplying that load? If their governors are all set to “zero droop”, at the first disturbance, they will all attempt to single-handedly restore synchronous speed and the result will be over-correction and instability. The system will swing wildly over and under-frequency until the prime movers are forced to shut down on over or under speed.
The trick is to set all the governors but one in this hypothetical case to relatively high “droop”. Those machines are said to be “base loaded”. That means they will only respond slightly to speed variations. The one governor that is set at “zero droop” is called “the open governor” and the machine to which it is attached is the one that will “chase load”.
The dance electric utilities perform each day is to bring up and shut down “base loaded” machines incrementally as anticipated load builds and wanes while simultaneously keeping enough “open generators” on line to handle short term load swings automatically. It’s a beautifully complex dance and every time you turn on a light or start up an electric motor, the music for that dance changes.
The addition of unpredictable wind and solar generation horrendously complicates that utility dance because the utility must now chase not only varying customer load. It must also chase varying “renewable generation”.

@george e
“But if I hit a piece or steel (ordinary battleship plate) with a steel hammer, but not hard enough to deflect either beyond the region where Hooke’s law applies, both surfaces recover immediately, to their pristine original condition, just as they do if I apply the strain and remove it in a 10 minute sinusoidal cycle.”
I have an example of the hammer and steel that is well known: the sinking of the Titanic. The direct cause was the ship hitting an iceberg and ripping open like a zipper along the riveted joints. The background explanation was that the rivets were made from steel slag and had wonderful and appropriate properties at room temperature. An impact of a high frequency (being hit by a hammer just as you describe) had a response (energy lost v.s. energy returned) with a low ratio (Tan Delta). However dropping the temperature of the rivet to 4 Deg C produced a completely different operating paradigm, something you did not anticipate in your example. That is the point of the climate response comparison.
At 4 Deg C the energy returned by the rivet dropped dramatically because the material fractured when impacted. The concept of a steel rivet behaving very differently with a change of only 25 degrees was not yet developed. As you will know from reading, the climate is considered to respond in a predictable manner across a range of conditions, whether that response to forcing is logarithmic or linear of something else, it is assumed to be a continuum. Materials science shows this is almost never the case. In spite of the fact the atmosphere is made of ‘materials’ it is assumed not to have a property other materials do, namely a large change in the response to forcing that manifests only at a certain frequency of that applied forcing, in other words, a dynamic property related to frequency.
Examine the assumptions behind arguments favouring a temperature response to an increase in forcing from GHG’s. They all assume some form of continuum with no exploration of dynamic phenomena. Yet the history of temperature, so far as we have been able to describe it, is replete with examples of highly discontinuous behaviours characteristic of a Max Tan Delta point of ‘the material’. We have no reason to assume that an atmosphere will not behaving as other materials do just because we breathe it or because it is big. Specialised knowledge of how ‘air’ behaves dynamically allows the creation of remarkable machines. For example 60% of the thrust of an SR71 Blackbird comes from the design of the intake of the engine, not the burning of fuel, as it captures and re-directs the sonic boom efficiently towards the rear. Such a feature is not discernible by examining at all levels, the physical properties and composition of air. It is a dynamic property.
Global circulation models are based on ‘stationary physics’. So is the thunderstorm thermostat model, really. While explaining this to my wife over coffee at Timmy’s this morning, she immediately recognized that the atmosphere was a ‘material’ before I said so taking the wind out of my Big Insight sail. She said it was obvious. I think it is a mistake of omission to consider that the atmosphere will behave in the same manner under all conditions and frequencies of input, with the main modeling challenge being to get a handle on all of the ‘inputs’. It is not. The nature of physical reality is different from this simplistic expectation. The interesting Tan Delta points of extensive pieces of squishy materials come at very low frequencies, but come they do.