Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
[UPDATE: When reading the comments, you’ll notice a number of nasty untrue personal attacks made on me by three commenters with the screen names “Lady Gaiagaia”, “Gloria Swansong”, and “Sturgishooper”. One of them makes an attack, another jumps in to agree, the third one says the first two are right … that kind of thing. Here’s the funny part … alert work by a moderator has revealed that all three are nothing but sock-puppets for some unknown scumball with an axe to grind. I see this as a testament to the desperation of the person involved, that they are willing to try these despicable ploys in a vain effort to discredit real science. Anyhow, keep that in mind when going through the comments.]
While I was involved in an interesting interchange with David Douglass here, I stumbled across an interesting discovery. Before I get to that, though, I have to give high marks to David and his co-author, Robert Knox, for showing up on WUWT to defend their paper. Most authors don’t have the albondigas to do that, so I definitely tip my hat to them, much appreciated.
The subject of the interchange was the area in the Pacific Ocean called the “Nino3.4 Region”, which goes from 5°N to 5°S and from 170°W to 120°W. It started with a look at the sea surface temperature (SST) in the area. When the Nino3.4 region is running hot, it means that there is an El Nino in progress. Here is that graph:
Figure 1. Sea surface temperature (SST) in the Nino 3.4 region of the Pacific Ocean, decomposed into seasonal and residual components. Top panel shows the observations. Middle panel shows the seasonal component of the observations, that is to say, the average monthly changes in the data. Bottom panel shows the “residuals”, which is what’s left after we subtract the seasonal component from the observations. DATA SOURCE
In the bottom pane of Figure 1, we can see the various El Nino events over the period as clear peaks in the data, including the large El Ninos in 1983 and 1998.
In the process of the discussion I looked at something I’d never examined, which is how much solar radiation the surface actually receives in the Nino3.4 region. This is measured as what is left of the downwelling solar radiation after cloud reflections and atmospheric absorption, minus the amount that is reflected from the surface of the ocean. So we’re measuring how much solar energy is actually absorbed by the ocean surface. The data is from the CERES radiation-measuring satellite.
Figure 2. Absorbed solar energy in the Nino 3.4 region of the Pacific Ocean, decomposed into seasonal and residual components. Top panel shows the observations. Middle panel shows the seasonal component of the observations, that is to say, the average monthly changes in the data. Bottom panel shows the “residuals”, which is what’s left after we subtract the seasonal component from the observations. DATA SOURCE
I looked at that and said “Wow!” and ran to compare the two. Why? Because I realized I could see the 2003, 2007, and 2010 El Ninos in the absorbed solar data, and it was moving opposite to the surface temperature … which would be very strong observational support for my hypothesis that the tropical ocean temperature regulates the incoming sunlight. It does so inter alia via the following processes:
Warmer Ocean ==> Earlier-forming and More Daily Clouds ==> More Solar Reflection and Absorption ==> Less Available Solar Energy
and
Cooler Ocean ==> Later-Forming and Fewer Daily Clouds ==> Less Solar Reflection and Absorption ==> More Available Solar Energy
Obviously, this is a self-regulating system. When it is running cool it lets in more energy, and when it is running hot it lets in less energy. This is the heart of the system of emergent climate phenomena that has kept the planet from either frying or freezing into a snowball for millions of years.
In order to compare the two datasets, SST and absorbed solar, I used what is called a “cross-correlation” analysis. This calculates the correlation (a measure of similarity) between the two at a variety of lags. Let me first say what I hoped to find.
First, I hoped to find that there was a strong negative correlation between absorbed energy and sea surface temperature (SST). This would mean that as SST rises, absorbed solar energy goes down, and vice versa. Note that this is the opposite of what we’d expect—normally, as the absorbed solar energy increases the temperature increases.
Next, I hoped to find that there was a very short lag between the temperature and the downwelling solar. Normally, when the sun heats the ocean there’s about a 2-month plus lag between peak insolation and peak temperature, because of the thermal mass of the ocean. But if the temperature is controlling the clouds as my hypothesis states, the lag should be much shorter, one month or less.
Finally, I hoped to find that the cross-correlation analysis would be convincingly shaped, which means a clear peak at zero or short lags, and falling away quickly on both sides of the peak.
With that said, here are the results of the cross-correlation analysis:
Figure 3. Cross-correlation analysis, absorbed solar energy and sea surface temperature in the Nino3.4 region. The climatology (monthly averages Jan-Dec) has been removed from both datasets.Positive lag indicates absorbed solar lagging the change in temperature.
I could not have been happier when I saw that result. It is crystal-clear evidence that the sea surface temperature is regulating the incoming sunlight as my hypothesis states.
Of course, I couldn’t leave it at that, I had to look to see how widespread this phenomenon might be. One can use the CERES satellite data for this, but there is a challenge. CERES has no surface temperature dataset … but it does have a surface upwelling radiation dataset, which can be converted using the Stefan-Boltzmann to temperature. How accurate is this CERES estimate of the SST? Very accurate everywhere I’ve tested it … but this gave me another chance to test it. Here is the NOAA sea surface temperature in the Nino3.4 region compared to the CERES estimate of the SST for the same region …
Figure 4. The CERES satellite dataset estimated sea surface temperature in the Nino3.4 region (red) compared to the NOAA SST for the same region.
Dang … well done, CERES scientists.
Greatly encouraged by that, I took a look at the relationship between temperature and absorbed solar radiation worldwide. Figure 5 shows that result:
Figure 5. The correlation of surface temperature and the solar radiation absorbed by the surface. The mid-Pacific red rectangle shows the Nino3.4 region. DATA SOURCE
As you can see, over much of the surface of the planet, the absorbed solar energy is positively correlated with temperature, just as we’d expect.
But in the area of the inter-tropical convergence zone north and south of the equator, what’s sometimes called the deep wet topics, the reverse is true. There, the emergent climate phenomena of cumulus clouds, thunderstorms, and squall lines act to regulate the incoming sunlight. And as it turns out, the Nino3.4 zone is not even the area of the strongest negative correlation. The strongest is centered on the equator and the international date line at 180° West (or 180° East).
Finally, let me call attention to the size of the restorative force. During the 2010 El Nino, the absorbed solar in the region dropped by about 40W/m2. This gives us an idea of the strength of this part of the temperature regulation system.
Not much else I can say except that this is very strong support for my hypothesis that the climate is not a simple function of the forcing, but instead is regulated such that it varies only a very small amount (e.g. ± 0.3°C over the entire 20th century).
Regards to all on a lovely late summer’s day,
w.
My Usual Request: If you disagree with someone, please have the courtesy to quote the exact words that you disagree with. That way we can all understand both who you are addressing and exactly what it is that you object to.
Further Reading: Since the original publication in Energy and Environment of my hypothesis that emergent phenomena constrain the global surface temperature to a very narrow range, I’ve written the following posts on the subject:
The Thermostat Hypothesis 2009-06-14
Abstract: The Thermostat Hypothesis is that tropical clouds and thunderstorms actively regulate the temperature of the earth. This keeps the earth at an equilibrium temperature. …
Plankton Cause Hurricanes! Urgent Action Required! 2010-08-15
When people say that we understand the unbelievably complex climate system well enough to project scenarios out a hundred years, I point out that new things are being discovered every week. The latest scientific finding is that plankton cause hurricanes. I know it sounds like a headline in The Onion,…
Which way to the feedback? 2010-12-11
There is an interesting new study by Lauer et al. entitled “The Impact of Global Warming on Marine Boundary Layer Clouds over the Eastern Pacific—A Regional Model Study” [hereinafter Lauer10]. Anthony Watts has discussed some early issues with the paper here. The Lauer10 study has been controversial because it found that…
The Details Are In The Devil 2010-12-13
I love thought experiments. They allow us to understand complex systems that don’t fit into the laboratory. They have been an invaluable tool in the scientific inventory for centuries. Here’s my thought experiment for today. Imagine a room. In a room dirt collects, as you might imagine. In my household…
Further Evidence for my Thunderstorm Thermostat Hypothesis 2011-06-07
For some time now I’ve been wondering what kind of new evidence I could come up with to add support to my Thunderstorm Thermostat hypothesis (q.v.). This is the idea that cumulus clouds and thunderstorms combine to cap the rise of tropical temperatures. In particular, thunderstorms are able to drive…
It’s Not About Feedback 2011-08-14
The current climate paradigm believed by most scientists in the field can be likened to the movement of balls on a pool table. Figure 1. Pool balls on a level table. Response is directly proportional to applied force (double the force, double the distance). There are no “preferred” positions—every position…
A Demonstration of Negative Climate Sensitivity 2012-06-19
Well, after my brief digression to some other topics, I’ve finally been able to get back to the reason that I got the CERES albedo and radiation data in the first place. This was to look at the relationship between the top of atmosphere (TOA) radiation imbalance and the surface…
The Tao of El Nino 2013-01-28
I was wandering through the graphics section of the TAO buoy data this evening. I noted that they have an outstanding animation of the most recent sixty months of tropical sea temperatures and surface heights. Go to their graphics page, click on “Animation”. Then click on “Animate”. When the new…
Here there be Dragons 2013-02-04
I was reflecting tonight about emergent phenomena, and how one thing about emergent phenomena is their unpredictability. I’m in the process of writing up a post on emergent phenomena in climate, so they’ve been on my mind. I got to thinking about something I saw thirty-five years ago, a vision…
Emergent Climate Phenomena 2013-02-07
In a recent post, I described how the El Nino/La Nina alteration operates as a giant pump. Whenever the Pacific Ocean gets too warm across its surface, the Nino/Nina pump kicks in and removes the warm water from the Pacific, pumping it first west and thence poleward. I also wrote…
Slow Drift in Thermoregulated Emergent Systems 2013-02-08
In my last post, “Emergent Climate Phenomena“, I gave a different paradigm for the climate. The current paradigm is that climate is a system in which temperature slavishly follows the changes in inputs. Under my paradigm, on the other hand, natural thermoregulatory systems constrain the temperature to vary within a…
Air Conditioning Nairobi, Refrigerating The Planet 2013-03-11
I’ve mentioned before that a thunderstorm functions as a natural refrigeration system. I’d like to explain in a bit more detail what I mean by that. However, let me start by explaining my credentials as regards my knowledge of refrigeration. The simplest explanation of my refrigeration credentials is that I…
Dehumidifying the Tropics 2013-04-21
I once had the good fortune to fly over an amazing spectacle, where I saw all of the various stages of emergent phenomena involving thunderstorms. It happened on a flight over the Coral Sea from the Solomon Islands, which are near the Equator, south to Brisbane. Brisbane is at 27°…
Decadal Oscillations Of The Pacific Kind 2013-06-08
The recent post here on WUWT about the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has a lot of folks claiming that the PDO is useful for predicting the future of the climate … I don’t think so myself, and this post is about why I don’t think the PDO predicts the climate…
Stalking the Rogue Hotspot 2013-08-21
[I’m making this excellent essay a top sticky post for a day or two, I urge sharing it far and wide. New stories will appear below this one. – Anthony] Dr. Kevin Trenberth is a mainstream climate scientist, best known for inadvertently telling the world the truth about the parlous…
The Magnificent Climate Heat Engine 2013-12-21
I’ve been reflecting over the last few days about how the climate system of the earth functions as a giant natural heat engine. A “heat engine”, whether natural or man-made, is a mechanism that converts heat into mechanical energy of some kind. In the case of the climate system, the…
The Thermostatic Throttle 2013-12-28
I have theorized that the reflective nature of the tropical clouds, in particular those of the inter-tropical convergence zone (ITCZ) just above the equator, functions as the “throttle” on the global climate engine. We’re all familiar with what a throttle does, because the gas pedal on your car controls the…
On The Stability and Symmetry Of The Climate System 2014-01-06
The CERES data has its problems, because the three datasets (incoming solar, outgoing longwave, and reflected shortwave) don’t add up to anything near zero. So the keepers of the keys adjusted them to an artificial imbalance of +0.85 W/m2 (warming). Despite that lack of accuracy, however, the CERES data is…
Dust In My Eyes 2014-02-13
I was thinking about “dust devils”, the little whirlwinds of dust that you see on a hot day, and they reminded me that we get dulled by familiarity with the wonders of our planet. Suppose, for example, you that “back in the olden days” your family lived for generations in…
The Power Stroke 2014-02-27
I got to thinking about the well-known correlation of El Ninos and global temperature. I knew that the Pacific temperatures lead the global temperatures, and the tropics lead the Pacific, but I’d never looked at the actual physical distribution of the correlation. So I went to the CERES dataset, and…
Arctic Albedo Variations 2014-12-17
Anthony has just posted the results from a “Press Session” at the AGU conference. In it the authors make two claims of interest. The first is that there has been a five percent decrease in the summer Arctic albedo since the year 2000: A decline in the region’s albedo –…
Albedic Meanderings 2015-06-03
I’ve been considering the nature of the relationship between the albedo and temperature. I have hypothesized elsewhere that variations in tropical cloud albedo are one of the main mechanisms that maintain the global surface temperature within a fairly narrow range (e.g. within ± 0.3°C during the entire 20th Century). To…
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
OK, so Willis isn’t perfect. Golly, let’s tar and feather him! NOT!
On the other hand, I’ve seen here on WUWT that he’s willing to spend a great amount of personal time trying to sort out the various messes created by the “real” scientists whose main claim to knowledge, at least as it appears to me, is that they know how to add Bull S., More Bull S, and Piled Higher and Deeper Bull S. to their names, (never mind “I’m a Nobel Laureate”) ,usually at everyone else’s expense.
I think, from what I’ve read of his posts, that Willis brings something that those others don’t bring which is real life experience and observation from a multitude of perspectives, unmatched by people hiding in a lab or cavorting with their “consensus” cohort. At least when he discovers a mistake has been made in his own work he corrects it.
Willis’ writing alone made me intensely interested in studying clouds and ocean currents, etc., in order to gain some understanding of their effects on climate, and he does a much better job of explaining and demonstrating aspects of climate than any university division “science professor” I’ve ever had, all on his own dime.
You go Willis!!!
Well said!
Thanks, guys. I wander around in fields of data, and I analyze them and try to make sense of them. When I encouter something interesting, I report back my findings as best I know how.
Seems like folks have decided it’s open season on me, slinging any possible mud on my life, my work experience, my competence, my lack of credentials. Mud on everything in sight except my science … my rule of thumb is that when a man starts throwing mud, it’s because he’s out of ammunition.
Salvatore and the rest would never bother with their vile personal attacks if they could attack my science, or if they had anything remotely scientific to contribute besides boasting about how profound their scientific understanding is.
Regards,
w.
+1 from me. the ability to explain his work without resorting to bs is a rare trait these days.
“Obviously, this is a self-regulating system.”
Even more obviously this is not news to anyone who follows climate science. It’s why La Ninas follow El Ninos.
What is apparently not *obvious* to you Klapper, is that most people DON’T “follow climate science” , and which Willis understands completely, unlike most academics who write about it.
While I appreciate the support, I would never claim to understand climate science completely, that’s about three bridges too far. Climate is way too broad a subject area to understand it all—you’d need to be everything from an atmospheric physicist to a marine biologist to a cryospecialist and a couple dozen more specialties to comprehend it all.
What I do think I have to offer is a new climate paradigm—instead of the current faith-based belief that the changes in temperature are a function of the changes in forcing, I say that emergent climate phenomena regulate and restrict the temperature to a fairly narrow range (e.g. ±0.3°C over the 20th century), and forcing has little to do with it.
Best regards,
w.
Willis wrote: “Because I realized I could see the 2003, 2007, and 2010 El Ninos in the absorbed solar data, and it was moving opposite to the surface temperature … which would be very strong observational support for my hypothesis that the tropical ocean temperature regulates the incoming sunlight.,, Obviously, this is a self-regulating system. When it is running cool it lets in more energy, and when it is running hot it lets in less energy. This is the heart of the system of emergent climate phenomena that has kept the planet from either frying or freezing into a snowball for millions of years.”
The information in this post is extremely interesting, but appears to be mis-interpreted in this passage (and in similar passages).
The first conclusion is partially correct: IN THE NINO 3.4 AREA, tropical ocean temperature appears to negatively regulate incoming sunlight. Only when the reader gets to Figure 5 does he/she get to see global data. There we find that Willis hasn’t told us that GLOBALLY more SWR is absorbed when it is warmer (positive correlation). This feedback (the SWR component of cloud feedback) amplifies GHG-mediated warming. In the tropics as a whole, he also hasn’t told us there is net ZERO correlation: Some regions (like the Western Pacific Warm Pool) shows strongly negative correlation, but this is balanced by positive correlation elsewhere. It may be that the warmest ocean areas are regulated by a strong negative feedback that usually limits SSTs to 30 degC, but that much of the tropics isn’t warm enough cross the threshold to a regime with strongly negative feedback. It would be interesting to see if the amount of negative correlation increases when you only consider SSTs greater than some limit, say SSTs greater than 27 degC. As the GHG mediated warming increases, more of the tropics might cross the threshold needed to produce negative feedback.
WIllis’s observations certainly don’t demonstrate the existence of a self-regulating SYSTEM – even in the areas of negative correlation. The SYSTEM consists of more than just incoming SWR – negatively regulated by temperature presumably by clouds over part of the planet. Clouds also regulate outgoing OLR. High clouds emit relatively little OLR while low clouds emit nearly as much as the surface. Convection is another key part of the system, carrying heat and moisture both upward and poleward (both through the ocean and atmosphere). If we knew that these components of the system remained constant as SST negatively regulated incoming SWR, then Willis would have demonstrated a self-regulating system in a small portion of the planet.
The Planck response to surface warming is probably the “heart of the system … that has kept the planet from either frying or freezing into a snowball”, but we have still experienced “snowball earth” in the distant past and ice ages in the recent past.
Frank, you say:
Good heavens, you don’t expect me to discuss all of the different aspects of global temperature regulation by a variety of very different emergent climate phenomena this in one post, I hope.
My suggestion is that you start by reading each and every post in the list I appended to the head post. There you will find both theory and observations, and I discuss and investigate all of the issues that you raise.
When you’ve done that, if you still have questions, then I’m happy to answer them.
Finally, let me ask you to please dial back on the insults. You wrongly claim that I’m deliberately holding back results, viz:
and
Hogwash! If I didn’t tell you … then who did? Did you do the research to find that out? Nope. You know that information for one reason only, because I JUST TOLD YOU, and now you use what I just told you to claim that “Willis hasn’t told us …”?
Not nice at all.
Your implication that I’m deliberately leaving out information is unpleasant, un-called for, and most importantly, totally untrue. I’m the one doing the research, not you. You know what you know about this entire subject, top to bottom, because I reported all of my results, good, bad, and ugly alike.
So let me invite you to lay off the personal attacks, they don’t reflect well on your character.
Best regards,
w.
good grief Willis you need another holiday!!
mwh September 27, 2015 at 5:10 pm
Just what I need. Another jerkwagon to ignore the science and tell me I’m all wrong.
Congratulations. You’ve just made yourself part of the problem.
And no, I won’t sit still and let some fool claim I’m deliberately withholding data. Not gonna happen on my watch. I don’t bite, but I damn sure bite back. Sorry you don’t like it.
w.
“I don’t bite,”
Nonsense, look at the way you attacked me because you were ignorant of the standard WMO definition of a heat wave.
“Until you give us those numbers, anything you say about your mythical and totally undefined “heat wave” is garbage. Get that straight. Instead of actual specific predictions that can be verified or falsified, you’re giving us garbage. Trash. Crap. Useless twaddle. Nonsense.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1417132
p.s. the northeast US got that long cold shot from around 7 Jan 2014 that I predicted.
[Snip. Sock-puppet. ~mod.]
Jim Sawhill September 27, 2015 at 7:08 pm
Good question, Jim. Nope, nobody gets that honor automatically—they have to earn it by acting like jerkwagons.
I’ve been told that my science was wrong by some of the best and some of the worst scientists around. And some of those times I’ve actually been wrong. But generally, I didn’t mind if they did it harshly, particularly if that part of my science actually was flawed, because they were attacking my science.
Jerkwagons, on the other hand, attack me instead of my science … AS I SAID IN MY COMMENT. They want to ignore the science and focus on my education, my style, my lack of scientific credentials, did I work as a masseur, how I’m absolutely wrong about where I place my quotation marks, how I’m too krool to all the wonderful commenters, whether you call a Fourier transform “FT” or “FFT”, and in general what a worthless excuse for a human being they consider me to be … you know, crucial, vitally important stuff like that.
Those folks earn the coveted title of “jerkwagon”, and they are fortunate to be referred to by a euphemism in place of my actual opinion of them.
I hope that clears up the confusion …
w.
ulriclyons September 27, 2015 at 7:02 pm
ulrich, you were asked over and over to give us the numbers needed to make your prediction real. You refused to give them. Let me quote a bit more from that email, the previous paragraph to the one you quoted:
As a result of your refusal to specify your so-called “predictions”, all you were giving us was useless garbage and I told you so.
And your claim that I was “ignorant of the standard WMO definition” is pure bovine excrement, because you didn’t mention until later, until after even more people than before had pressed you to provide numbers, that you were using the WMO definition … don’t try to sneak that hogwash past me, that’s bogus historical revisionism.
However, note that in that comment I didn’t bite YOU in the slightest. I didn’t attack your education, your morals, your personal character, nothing of the sort. I just told you the truth about your so-called predictions—that without numbers they could not be falsified and thus they were useless as tits on a boar hog. You didn’t like that, but it was the truth then and it is the truth now.
Jeez, you quote me but you don’t even quote your own prediction? Break it out, dude, lets have a look at it. Does it specify what you are going to call “cold”, given that it’s for January? And how long is a “long” cold shot on your planet? One week? One month?
Next, the area of the prediction. Piers Corbyn famously predicted forest fires in one state and claimed success when there were forest fires in the next state over … so did your prediction specify what area you were talking about? I mean, you don’t even specify the area now, just “northeast America” … how many states are you referring to, and which ones?
Next, to be falsifiable you have to specify the way you’ll measure success. What temperature records are you going to use? I mean, if one state in the “northeast US” has a long cold spell whatever that means, and the other 9? 11? however many states are warmer than usual, is your prediction right or wrong?
Because if a prediction of a “long cold shot” has no definition of either “long” or “cold”, or if you don’t say where it’s supposed to happen or how you plan to verify whether it happened or not … well, sorry, but that’s not a prediction at all.
A prediction is like a bet, and at the end of the bet you have to have a way to determine who won and who lost. The prediction itself must specify enough details for us to clearly determine winners and losers.
And if you are unwilling or unable to provide those details INCLUDING NUMBERS in your prediction, then as I told you back then, instead of actual specific predictions that can be verified or falsified, you’re giving us garbage. Trash. Crap. Useless twaddle. Nonsense.
So point us to your prediction, and we can determine if it is falsifiable or not.
w.
Willis said:
“..you were asked over and over to give us the numbers needed to make your prediction real. You refused to give them.”
Nonsense, I would never refuse such a thing.
“And your claim that I was “ignorant of the standard WMO definition” is pure bovine excrement, because you didn’t mention until later, until after even more people than before had pressed you to provide numbers, that you were using the WMO definition … don’t try to sneak that hogwash past me, that’s bogus historical revisionism.”
Pure bovine excrement? you cannot help your potty mouth can you. The reason that I had to mention it later was simply that you didn’t know. And just look at all the grief that you gave me over it, and you still continue. Even the points where I outright proved you wrong on that post, you didn’t have the spine to admit that you were wrong. For example where you claimed that the NAO were not positive in July-August, which is because you are hopeless at looking at graphs and charts, and failed to look at the monthly figures:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1420719
We don’t get apologies for your unnecessary rudeness, nor for your for false claims, and that isn’t the only example by any means. Like when you insisted that it wasn’t colder on CET in solar minima. All you did was insult me by suggesting that I had fabricated the name of the Gleissberg Minimum, and then failed to acknowledge that I had proved you wrong, and that all three the coldest periods on CET were in solar minima. Because you couldn’t read or didn’t want to read what the chart actually showed.
Willis you read me completely wrong, I was sympathising (see about 4 posts above where I am so cross at the abuse hurled at you) considering the situation and the amount of offensive material I will ignore the jerk wad comment which was uncalled for and does you no credit
ref post september 27 7:09am 7 posts below your september 26 11:12pm………..I love your posts from the very first I read about your fishing and erroneous buoy data
As it happens and in reponse to a post from Bill Illis above which he very kindly responded to, I referred back to the thread you did back in August when I first read about your tropical rainstorm theory. It made so much sense I have been avidly waiting for the follow up.
I dont generally get too involved as I lack the knowledge to do so when things get technical especially with statistical maths (not enough grey matter space to learn at the moment). However I understood that you were particularly interested in the diurnal changes caused during El Nino/Nina. That I particularly liked as to me it tied up the loose ends. I am now confused as to whether that is still central to the theory.
Kind regards, and sincerely meant best wishes, Mark
When I was 19 and here in Sussex we were experiencing the hottest and calmest summer I have ever (or is it evah) experienced I used to spend half the day rowing my little rowing boat between Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, where for 2 months the sea bass and mackerel were chasing shoals of brit to the millpond surface with a roar that sounded like a crashing wave. It was so exhilarating to just watch and be so close to with he bass flashing past my boat.
I dont think there has ever been a time where I have been more at peace and when I was tired I would lie down on my back in the bottom of the boat and watch the clouds forming over the South Down Hills just in land from us – it was seeing the geography I had learnt at school coming into action. You could feel the breeze picking up off the sea heading in land and rising as it hit the warm land and slope of the downs. So dramatic was this that regularly they would be playing cricket 100m from the beach whilst there was a rainstorm not 500m further inland – incredible and stirred an interest in meteorology (my wife kicks me under the table sometimes if I get on the subject) that has remained with me ever since, hence my interest here.
Please forgive me if I made an already unpleasant day more unpleasant – not intended at all
ulriclyons September 28, 2015 at 2:29 am Edit
Three different commenters asked you for numbers, including myself. You refused to give them. READ THE THREAD, it’s all there in black and white.
I call bullshit bullshit … sorry, but if you don’t like it, stop spewing it.
More bullshit. The reason you had to mention it later is because YOU DIDN’T MENTION IT EARLIER, so nobody but you knew what you were claiming … again, read the thread.
Please don’t feel special. I give the same grief to everyone who tries to claim that a prediction without numbers is valid.
You still agitating over that? Really?
I love guys who wave their hands and say “that isn’t the only example by any means” … is there some part of “quote the exact words you disagree with” that puzzles you?.
And you still seem to think that me abusing your bogus predictions is somehow me abusing YOU. If you can’t tell the difference between you and your claimed “predictions”, I can’t help you.
Let me try it again, more slowly this time:
Quote. The. Exact. Words. You. Disagree. With. So. Everyone. Can. Understand. Your. Objections.
Finally, you remember at the top of your comment saying
And do you remember me asking at the end of the last comment …
So … since you would “never refuse such a thing” … where are your numbers, Ulrich?
w.
Willis Eschenbach September 27, 2015 at 5:58 pm
mwh September 28, 2015 at 3:07 am Edit
I will gladly take your word for it, as your intentions are obviously good. My apologies for my misunderstanding and my harsh words.
For future reference, however, telling someone “you need another holiday” in the midst of a heated discussion is far from being obvious sympathy. It sounded like you were saying “you’re on the wrong path, Willis, you’re over-wrought, you need to take a break”.
And yes, I’m on a hair-trigger. I’ve just been attacked relentlessly by the three weird sock-puppets for no reason, the sock-puppets think Dinostratus is a genius, Dino is giving me endless grief over where I put my quotation marks, Salvatore is spreading lies about what Dr. Roy said, Ulrich is off his meds because we asked him to put numbers to his predictions a couple years ago … yeah, I’d say that after having been handed the worst over and over in this thread, I’m assuming the worst …
Finally, no, I didn’t remember that 4 comments above you said something supportive. I’m sorry, but I make no attempt to connect aliases up with comments. If you want me to remember your comments, sign your own name to them. Otherwise, I can’t be bothered, there are too many anonymous comments and the aliases are changing all the time and are often so similar.
Anyhow, thanks for clearing that up, and again, my apologies for my misdirected anger.
w.
PS—Ulrich, please note that when I am wrong I do indeed apologize … but I’ll never apologize for saying that predictions without numbers were garbage.
Its no biggy Willis – I know you were under pressure – actually I was trying to lighten you up……sure got that wrong. Pesronally I couldnt give a damn what those other idiots say – a very few people with an agenda hogging the thread. I am fascinated by this topic and I havent yet seen it discounted. I have bookmarked several links to read when I get a bit more time. I will sink back to lurking distance now.
Best wishes Mark Hansford. (they are my initials – when I registered I was still smarting from being banned from Nevens site for not toeing his line and didnt really want to be ridiculed for popping up here – now I dont care so much)
Thanks, Mark, noted and appreciated.
w.
It will take me about 40 seconds to explain the difference between random data and chaotic data. It does NOT take months. It does take months to make up your own definitions, reinvent a fleet of wheels, make plodding inferential conclusions that are either wrong or were obvious to begin with. Please don’t. Save us the agony.
Here’s a difference between you and a trained scientist. To become a trained scientist, one has to take math classes, learn from his betters and have any vestige of ego squashed. It’s your ego that irritates me to no end. Not your lack of education. Ego.
It’s fine to be a skeptic. I’m a skeptic. I keep it in check though as to make progress it is much more efficient to learn from people who are smarter than me.
Dinostratus said September 28, 2015 at 5:58 pm:
“It will take me about 40 seconds to explain the difference between random data and chaotic data.”
So….. Normally, one might expect such an utterance to be followed by a 40 second explanation! Not 40 seconds of irrelevant babble.
Don’t rush yourself however. It’s hardly new. In fact, I wouldn’t mind much if you just stayed away.
I’m sorry you got caught up in this whole thing but if you’re going to publish a sheet that covers basic signal processing concepts and you get them wrong, well your credibility is not going to be very good. That’s just a fact.
“More bullshit. The reason you had to mention it later is because YOU DIDN’T MENTION IT EARLIER, so nobody but you knew what you were claiming”
No, as already explained, you are the one that didn’t know what the standard WMO heatwave standard that we use in the UK is. You could have politely asked for it rather that give a barrage of abuse. That is a lie that I refused to give the heatwave definition. In fact you are the one doing the bogus historical revisionism with this saga.
“You still agitating over that? Really?”
Proof that you cannot admit when you are wrong, and of belligerent self righteousness despite the facts. Pathetic school yard behaviour, you have no integrity as a scientist if you refuse to admit your errors. Damn right I’m still agitating over that, because you are still defending the same corrupt position. You have an attitude problem with me Willis, you won’t admit to a single error or false claim that I have shown on any post of yours in the last couple years. Pure willful ignorance.
“Let me try it again, more slowly this time:
Quote. The. Exact. Words. You. Disagree. With. So. Everyone. Can. Understand. Your. Objections.”
I did that a number of times on that post (CET in solar minima) comment thread, and you ignored it every time. You just don’t like admitting when you are wrong, and you do it repeatedly.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/23/maunder-and-dalton-sunspot-minima/#comment-1668036
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/23/maunder-and-dalton-sunspot-minima/#comment-1668853
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/23/maunder-and-dalton-sunspot-minima/#comment-1669540
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/23/maunder-and-dalton-sunspot-minima/#comment-1669540
You just tried to bullshit your way out if, you’ll probably respond here by doing exactly the same again:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/23/maunder-and-dalton-sunspot-minima/#comment-1668111
I don’t follow you when you say that more SW is absorbed under warmer temperatures globally. Are you talking about SST or land temperatures? I do know this: When surface waters are warmer than air, the water begins to evaporate, which leads to clouds and less SW penetration through those clouds. That’s just plain physics. Where is all this SW absorption you are talking about where it is warmer?
Meant for Frank.
always wondered about a lady
GaiaGaia.
could it be a ‘Sha’ in Sha’
a king of the kings,
ein Koenig der Koenige, a female Cesar?
or just ‘Frauenquote’, a nuisance you won’t get confronted with.
A blend granade, sturgishoppers womb bomb.
defending Paris’ unborn Death.
Hans
I’m from Wallowa County, one of the last frontiers in the Western US. Please translate.
Speaking of translating, Willis forced me to find out what ‘albondigas’ meant.
Now I know, and I’m a better man for it.
[And kudos to that anonymous mod who cross-checked names & computer ID’s.]
Thanks, db. I stole the term “albondigas” unashamedly from Matt Briggs, Statistician To The Stars … what are the odds of that?
w.
50/50? ☺
albondigas is a common Mexican meat ball soup.
g
Seems that this El Nino will be one of the strongest , as shown here: http://oceansgovernclimate.com/el-nino-to-be-or-not-to-be/. I wonder what kind of winter will we have?….
Thanks Willis for the hard work. It’s sad that you have to deal with all that crap thrown at you.
Appreciated. It’s been a bizarre thread, but we forge ahead regardless.
All the best to you,
w.
really great post willis ,has to be one of your best to date. very sad to see what was a very informative discussion derailed by a few idiots with egos as big as their mouth.
having read all the replies in relation to the op i was hoping to see someone smarter than me looking at lunar data over the same period,something like this http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/new-paper-finds-lunar-tide-cycle.html
in any discussion relating to the oceans i think it is a mistake to ignore one of the greatest factors in relation to movement of the oceans water. the lunar cycles influence ranging from daily to monthly to millennial all play a part in moving huge volumes of ocean water. the relative position of the moon to the earth during the periods of these cycles must play a huge part in moving areas of cold or warm water around the globe by altering various currents over various timescales .
robert gallacher.
Thanks, Robert. I looked at that claim and that paper when it came up and I was totally unimpressed. The problem is that the 18.6 year lunar “cycle” is not a cycle as we understand it. It’s not how I had originally imagined it before I researched the question. I thought it was a long sinusoidal wave of some kind with an 18.6 year period … not so at all.
Instead, it’s just a time period when the positions of the sun, moon, and earth are kinda sorta in the same relationship but not exactly. As a result, the 18.6 year “cycle” is as if you put out one digit each month, like
1548935248788154968348859759667557855961249955312012500458559987 … etc, etc
The 18.6 year cycle is when the series of numbers starts over again … so what? Why should we expect the restarting of the numbers to make any difference? It’s still going up and down in the same limited range.
I’ve spent a good chunk of my life working and playing on and under the ocean, so I’m well aware of the lunar effects. Heck, I’ve even experienced the moon-wind, not many folks have ever noticed that. So I’m far from ignorant about the moon.
But to date, I’ve not seen any good data that shows that it affects the long-term temperature, and since the moon’s influence is obviously trendless, it’s hard to see how it could do so.
w.
thank you for the reply willis , that paper refers to just one particular cycle. as you say “kinda,sorta” in the same relationship . it is that variation over the various cycles i was interested in. the exact point on earth where the greatest gravitational pull from the moon happens throughout these cycles varies. the greatest effect on the oceans would depend whether that point is over a large land mass or the oceans,and which particular point in the oceans.
i too have spent a large chunk of my life in and around the oceans, and have witnessed huge amounts of sand disappear and reappear on stretches of coast when there have been no storms and no other extraordinary factors witnessed during the period this occurred. the only thing that can can do that is a shifting current. i appreciate there are many factors involved in the variation of ocean currents, my query was in relation to one of those.
Yes Willis, ref your post hoc note, it quickly gets a bit lame and obvious.
Whilst its always interesting to read what one’s opponents say about one, since their criticisms are unclouded by affection or partisan views, their pointing up of one’s weaknesses are sometimes useful to build on.
However, the sad truth about ad hominem attacks is that they show up the poverty of the attackers position.
The use of proxies to strengthen this compounds the failure rather than giving strength.
The only way to win is to defeat the argument, insulting or shooting the messenger is a losing move.
George E. Smith —
“Most physicists understand that at higher Temperatures, the atmosphere holds more water in vapor form. Clouds tend to form at higher altitudes, because for a given surface relative humidity the dew point will be met at higher altitudes if the surface Temperatures are higher.” — this is not basically correct. In deserts temperatures are high, that does not mean more water vapour/clouds —“. In urban areas for example, with the day the temperature rises and over a vast waterbody, through evaporation water vapou enters the atmosphere and suddenly clouds forms and it rains and subsequently the temperature falls with cold wind all around in the wind direction — in coastal zones around vast water bodies we get sea breeze/ lake breeze that cools with this principle. So, temperature and water source must be there to create clouds/rains localized rains and not system based rains. They are quite different phenomenon.
In artificial rain making, there must be clouds and with the pumping of substances in to clouds that makes them supercool and thus it rains. But, generally localized clouds rarely give this result. So, the companies that seed the clouds choose system clouds that even without seeding gives widespread rains. In fact seeding system clouds, it reduces the rainfall in downwind direction — this was clearly shown during Olympic games in China. They tried to stop the rains in sports arena and this severely affected the farming downwind and farmers protested on this. I presented the such results the Andhra Pradesh Government and stopped the cloud seeding operations.
“Rainfall and other precipitations usually follow a cold front of some sort, it is not the rain which starts the process; although I will agree that when a cold front moves into a warm air mass, and we get rainfall, it is likely that some of that rain will re-evaporate while falling, and in the process reduce the Temperature of the originally resident warmer air.” — They system that operates under rainfall causing systems are quite different. This is the same with the cyclonic activity. Some argue with warming of oceans are linked to cyclonic activities but in India during pre-monsoon [summer] and post-monsoon winter causes severe cyclones but they are more in winter in association with the northeast monsoon.
When we understand the basics of meteorology, we get answers to such issues.
Thanks
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Well Dr Reddy, in making my comment, I made the mistake of assuming too much on the part of the reader.
I never intended to imply that the cloud / rain processes over the Sahara Desert were the same as those that exist in the Florida Keys.
My comment simply compared the cloud / rain relationships in a fixed ordinary environment, such as a typical residential neighborhood in ordinary America, for two different conditions. One with higher daytime temperatures and plenty of moisture around, and the other with lower daytime temperatures and similar relative humidity.
The situation with the higher surface Temperature, would presumably result in the cloud formation being at higher altitudes, and the night time Temperatures would be higher than following the less hot day situation.
Apparently I assumed too much from the reader.
G
Clear enough for you? PUT UP OR SHUT UP! Back up your slimy accusation or retract it. I’m tired of your insults.
I can not believe that comment I made has got you so upset. Why would you care?
If you are that upset I will say I am sorry I posted it.
One tough and brave on a web-site but that is not my style. I am saying this to you as if we were face to face. Again sorry if I got you so upset again if I had known I would have not posted it.
Salvatore Del Prete September 28, 2015 at 6:31 am
I care because you flat-out lied about what Dr. Roy said in a pathetic but vicious attempt to damage my reputation. If you don’t understand that, you have my sympathy.
If I’m upset you will apologize? I love the conditions. IF I’M UPSET, then at some future point you will apologize??? Do you truly believe I’m not upset?
No, your style is to scurrilously spread lies about what a decent honest scientist said in an attempt to do me harm.
Nonsense. You knew damn well that you were trying to do me harm. Stop trying to pretend that it was some innocent comment that I got unreasonable about.
You LIED about what someone said to try to DAMAGE MY REPUTATION. If you didn’t think I’d get upset about that, then you’re in big trouble … because if you are truly that ignorant of the real world, when you remove your cranium from your fundamental orifice you’re gonna go snow-blind from the sudden light.
Do I accept your apology? Sure, wholeheartedly.
Do I think you mean it?
I think you’re sorry you got caught lying.
w.
cor – one could act tough and brave on a web-site
Willis ,that was in reference to Oct. 7 2013 what Dr. Spencer has said. It was titled Citizen Willis and the cloud radiative effect.
I do not see any big deal over this.
I know what it was “in reference to”, you just lied about what was actually said.
And of course you don’t think it’s a big deal to lie to try to damage someone’s reputation … the person lying never thinks its a big deal. Out here in the real world, however, lies have consequences.
w.
Willis , you have cleared it up and I said I did not realize it.
Sometimes people do things and do not realize it.
I look forward to more arguments with you but only in the science and no more of what just recently happened.
Time will tell if my word is my bond, but then again I did not think anything of it until I say how mad you were.
Take Care
cor –saw how mad you were
As I understand it the basic premise of the CAGW crowd is that increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 disrupt the “natural” atmospheric heat balance and the only way to restore that “natural” balance is by radiating that unbalanced heat back to space per the S-B relationship, i.e. increasing the surface temperature. BTW, the atmosphere is not, as some postulate, a closed system. That assumption simplifies calculations, but ignores reality.
One, there is no such thing as the “natural” heat balance. As abundantly evident from both paleo and contemporary records the atmospheric heat balance has always been and continues to be in constant turmoil w/o regard to the pitiful 2 W/m^2 of industrial CO@ur momisugly added between 1750 and 2011. Fluctuations in incoming and outgoing radiation, changing albedo from clouds and ice, cosmic rays, 10 +/- W/m^2 range of solar insolation from perigee to apogee, etc. refute that notion of a closed system.
Two, radiation is far from the only source of rebalancing the “natural” heat balance. Water cools the surroundings when it evaporates and warms the surroundings when it condenses. The water vapor cycle, clouds, precipitation, etc., a subject which IPCC AR5 admits to having a poor understanding, modulates and moderates the atmospheric heat balance and has done so for millions of years all without the help or hindrance of industrialized man. The atmospheric water cycle is a global swamp cooler for the earth. Other planets don’t have that. The popular GHE considers radiation only and excludes water vapor.
CAGW has zip to do with science and everything to do with a hazy, starry eyed, utopian, anti-fossil fuel (90% anti-coal) agenda bereft of facts & reality.
Willis says which is the small picture. In the big picture solar activity will determine ocean heat content and sea surface temperatures. In other words it is solar activity which regulates the oceanic temperatures and lunar influences can not be over looked as far as influencing oceanic currents ,and the changing of them.
Remember Ian, he called for this El Nino based on lunar parameters way in advance and was correct and of course his call is being largely ignored. He has elaborated in detail how he came to these conclusions.
No BS and straight to the point.
Salvatore Del Prete September 28, 2015 at 8:31 am
No, I don’t remember that at all. How about you QUOTE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, or provide a link, so we can follow you and so that you’re not just babbling inanities about some unknown prediction somewhere?
w.
Willis my intent was not to damage your reputation. That is the truth. I did not realize it.
Again I hope we can get through the misunderstanding. I have nothing personally against you.
That article Dr. Spencer did can prove that what I said might have been incorrect.
If so I stand corrected.
You have torn my theory apart and I hold nothing against you other then we do not agree.
http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and-technology/2015/05/ian-wilson-the-el-ninos-during-new-moon-epoch-5-1963-to-1994-2767106.html
This is what I was referring to Willis.
Salvatore Del Prete September 28, 2015 at 12:53 pm
Thanks, Salvatore. Given your assurances above, I’m happy to let it go.
However, my strong advice is that if you see nothing wrong with making up a claim that I’m “pretending to be a climate scientist” and falsely stating that Dr. Roy said it … well, if you truly are that blind to what you’re doing in the social arena, you really should stick scrupulously to the science and eschew personal comments entirely …
Which is good advice in any case for everyone in a scientific discussion. Whether I’m a “real” scientist or not is just another bogus red herring you’ve dreamed up to divert interest from the fact that you can’t find anything wrong with my science … and the same is true when others launch similar ad-hominem attacks.
I’ve said it before … the only reason that you and the others start slinging mud at me is because you are out of real ammunition.
Why do you all spend so much time focusing on my undoubtedly human frailties? Every time you do that, YOU LOSE CREDIBILITY! Every time you attack me instead of attacking the science, YOUR REPUTATION SUFFERS!
Forget about me, and concentrate on the science.
Sheesh … why is this so hard to get across?
w.
Yes we will stick to the science.
Just be sure to slop some of those ITCZ / equatorial moisture packages up our way, to help feed this winter’s North Pacific Cold Fronts. We need ’em real juicy.
Moderator – having supported Willis all the way through this thread and completely sided with him, been misread and apologised for my bad timing am now to be insulted by being moderated as well my last post disappeared at ‘post comment’ – I like being on this site too much to mess it up
mwh – that was auto-moderation by the wordpress.com spam detector, sometimes combinations of words trigger this, it was not a human action. Your comment is restored.
Thanks Anthony feel like I am taking up far too much space getting truly embarrassed now – sorry for that
mwh, honest discussion never takes up too much space, and it is always valid to inquire about a lost comment. Thanks for your participation.
w.
Willis, you are in danger of your repartee being more entertaining than your science. Thank you for your work before and after posting.
Thanks, Joseph. I try to make my repartee as interesting as possible, regardless of the subject under discussion.
w.
Salvatore Del Prete September 28, 2015 at 3:50 pm
Gadzooks, that’s a horrible distortion of the scientific method. Heck, he doesn’t even follow his own guidelines for picking “strong” El Ninos. In addition, there’s only seven of them, and he makes no effort to show that this tiny number supposed correlations are significant, he gives us no error bars, no p-values, he just squints at his results from across the room and says dang, don’t that look sciencey! …
Not only that, but we have reasonable El Nino records going back over a hundred years … once again, when someone’s theory doesn’t get tested on the full dataset, I gotta say what I’ve been excoriated for saying but never proven wrong for saying, which is this:
When a man hides something … it’s because he has something to hide.
I say it is not accidental that he’s only shown a part of the record. You are free to believe otherwise.
If you want to put your full faith and trust in that kind of nonsense, be my guest.
OR, you could actually go get the data, and compare the full set of all known El Ninos to the moon’s behavior, do a proper statistical analysis of the results, and make up your own mind.
I’d suggest the latter choice, but even if you’re not going to do the latter … I’d suggest you stay a long ways away from the other choice …
Best regards,
w.
Dinostratus September 28, 2015 at 5:58 pm
Wonderful! Please give us your 40-second explanation, so we can see it for ourselves.
Dinostratus, I’m not engaged in “explaining the difference between random data and chaotic data”. I leave that mundane stuff to folks like you.
Instead, I’m investigating how and whether the Hurst analysis method of Koutsoyiannis can be used to differentiate between random datasets, red-noise ARMA datasets, high-Hurst Exponent datasets, Lorenz-chaotic datasets, Rossler-chaotic datasets, Henon-chaotic datasets, climate model datasets, and climate observation datasets.
Perhaps in your imagination you can investigate that in forty seconds. Here in the real world, I’m not just regurgitating information for 40 seconds like a parrot. I’m doing investigations that to the best of my knowledge have never been done. That’s why I find new things—because I go out and walk untrodden scientific paths, rather than winge about where someone puts their quotation marks.
Scientists have every vestige of ego squashed?!? What planet are you inhabiting? Some of them have egos so big they have their own postal codes. And if you think every vestige of your ego is squashed, I fear you’re beyond my poor power to add or detract.
Reality check. I have an un-squashed ego. You have an un-squashed ego.
So what?
You don’t seem to get it. I’m a freak of nature. I have absolutely no scientific training other than Physics 101, Chem 101, and one semester of college calculus. Period. Everything else I have taught myself through thousands and thousands of hours of study. I also have a peer-reviewed (and cited) “Brief Communications Arising” in Nature magazine. My 2003 findings that the change in fish catch in Lake Tanganyika were NOT climate related were confirmed, twelve years after publication, in Nature magazine itself. I suspect I am the only degree-less, formal-education-free person in the last good while who has published in Nature, much less had their findings confirmed in Nature. Am I proud of that? Dangbetcha. To date, my publications in scientific journals have garnered over 30 citations. Am I proud of that? You know it. I came up through the hawsehole, and it’s been a long hard climb.
So what?
Can we move on to the science, or are you going to focus on me and my real and imagined flaws forever?
I’m happy to learn from anyone. However, I wouldn’t do what you do. I would never restrict my learning opportunities to learning from people smarter than me. The problem with doing that is it would make my chances to learn far too infrequent …
…
Just kidding. Sorry, I couldn’t resist it, I knew it would make your un-squashed ego asplode …
w.
Bernie Hutchins September 28, 2015 at 7:43 pm Edit
Hasn’t happened in the past, but if we keep up the pressure he might actually, for the first time, move the scientific conversation forwards.
w.
Willis:
Why bother responding to some anonymous sock puppetty troll who chooses to hide behind a BS nom de net like “Dinostratus”
I believe Anthony should establish a policy that requires (with some exceptions, made at his discretion, for those whose careers may be endangered by posting their thoughts here) all who post here to do so under their real names.
It is the height of cowardice, of lack of integrity to act as these people do.
Really, i could care less about your background, or training, or lack of training….
After all much space is given to a cdertain english major, who had a career in marketing, before associating himself with a group named after a famous university, yet having nothing whatsoever to do with that institution.
At least he has the courage and decency to post under his given name.
Stop fighting with pigs…they like to wallow in porcine excretia, you only get dirty.
Thanks, David. I respond to folks like Dinosaurus for a few reasons.
First, I want to expose him for the blowhard that he is. Otherwise, some of the lurkers will assuredly think that he is right.
Second, I won’t let someone just rubbish my name without protest. If one person gets away with that, others see the opportunity and pile on, and pretty soon I have a conflagration on my hands. Better to stamp it out before it starts.
Third, it gives me a chance to re-state my own position. People don’t seem to realize that their protests are a convenient peg upon which I can hang a re-statement or a clearer exposition of my ideas.
Fourth, it gives me a chance to point out some of the more common ways that people avoid discussing the science.
Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, I’m not really having a discussion with Dinosaurus … oh, it looks like that, that’s the form of it, but in reality I write for the lurkers. I’m well aware that folks like Dino are extremely unlikely to change their minds, but there are many lurkers out there who are not so hidebound, who will consider my words and perhaps find them reasonable.
As to requiring people to only post under their own names, I’ve met many, many people who are unwilling to post under their own names because in their opinion it would damage either their own or their businesses reputation. The problem is, I don’t see how Anthony or anyone could sort them out and provide for relief “under his discretion” without huge problems. You gotta know that if he approves one person and not another that there is going to be a giant bunfight. And how can someone demonstrate that their business is at risk or their job is at risk if they’re identified as a climate skeptic? There’s no test for that, no database to consult.
So as much as I agree that it would be better if people published under their own names, the plan just doesn’t seem feasible to me.
Finally, I give plenty of space to Mosh, for a simple reason. Like me, he fights for honest transparent science. he practices it himself, he posts and links to his data and code, and he signs his own name to his words. I don’t ask more than that from anyone. If you do that, you are a scientist, for a simple reason—you are practicing science.
Yes, I often disagree with Steven, but that’s science. Like a good number of our commenters here, he’s wicked-smart (that’s a compliment), and his ideas are often very interesting and provocative. I just wish he’d give up his habit of occasional drive-by cryptic postings …
All the best,
w.
I understand your point regarding anonymity; I think that if all were required to release their names to Mr Watts, there would be some check on the asshattery thats been on display here, thats all.
Thanks Willis
Regarding Dinostratus, he/she on your “23 New Papers” post attacked me as:
“If you can’t even properly define a LT then it kinda makes your work…. suspect.”
and
“No. I’ve never, ever, never seen a two sided LT.”
It would have taken 10 seconds on Google to find out what it is and that it is part of the art. Instead the
FALLACY OF PERSONAL-INCREDULITY
Perhaps he/she should establish a site where he/she lists the items he/she HAS heard about, along with etiquette advice on placing quote marks and indicating when things are algorithms, etc.
If Dino’s knowledge of Fourier theory is any indication, he/she avoids every opportunity to show that he/she knows more than just enough jargon to harass the rest of us. I agree that others who know better should call BS on Dino.
Sorry guys. I’ve been away. A group of nuns was caught in a bus fire, stranded over a railroad track in front of an oncoming train and I had to act.
“It would have taken 10 seconds on Google to find out what it is and that it is part of the art. Instead the
FALLACY OF PERSONAL-INCREDULITY ”
So I look up “Two-sided Laplace Transform” and I find a wiki. Okay good enough. Let’s see what it says,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-sided_Laplace_transform
“In mathematics, the two-sided Laplace transform or bilateral Laplace transform is an integral transform equivalent to probability’s moment generating function.”
And I’m like, well ya. Duh. Technically a LT is a moment generating function used in statistics to generate averages, variances, skews, etc. I’m sure, like me, when you had done undergraduate work in signal processing, stability and control, etc. then in a graduate course in mathematical statistics, you saw definition of a MGF and said, “Well that’s a fine thing.” Like me, you never said “Hey! That’s a two sided Laplace transform!” Never in your wildest mind.
Why not? Welll here is wiki with the answer,
“Bilateral transforms don’t respect causality. They make sense when applied over generic functions but when working with functions of time (signals) unilateral transforms are preferred.”
That’s right! a TWO SIDED LAPLACE TRANSFORM does not respect causality. Why is that important? BECAUSE IT DOES NOT SOLVE INITIAL VALUE PROBLEMS!! HA HA!!
This is just to awesome. Life has come full circle for Willis. Willis does not understand the difference between a boundary value problem and an initial value problem (that post was a few months ago, iirc) and neither does his math friend and now they think that a two sided LT is twice as good for signal processing as a right sided LT.
No one but no one uses two sided LT’s for signal processing because they do not work, can’t work, just can’t…… They do not respect causality. On a site where WIllis argues with people about whether climate models are IVP’s or BVP’s (they are both*), it’s pretty darn important that the two sided FT doesn’t respect causality.
And just to round things out, the references that wiki uses for the Two-sided LT is are, in order, 1941, 1941, 1980, 1987, 1941. Not because it’s such an old, grand theory but because it’s applications are so few and statisticians do not call a MGF a Two-sided FT. Well maybe some do but I’ve never met them.
BTW – If someone really, really wants to know what’s so nifty about a two sided FT it’s that if one substitutes the dummy variable “-s” with “jw”, one gets a FT. It’s a very easy way to figure out the FT of various functions. You just find the equivalent function in a table of LT’s, substitute “-jw” for “s” and you get the Fourier transform. Cool.
* – By “both”, I mean they are elliptical and parabolic. Sorry if I wasn’t clear.
My ego compared to yours is enormous. Like a fourteen year old compared to a six year old.
My ego compared to my advisory is tiny, non-existent. He is the best researcher I have ever known, ever. I know many many researchers from IIT Madras campus to Stanford. None of them, I mean none, come close. What is so amazing is that if you ask him to compare himself, he will say he is tiny. Good researchers develop deep respect for competent people.
THAT is what bugs me about you WIllis. Is your lack of respect for those who have come before you and laid out the path. You reinvent everything because you are overly skeptical. Learn the math. Learn it. You can trust mathematics. You don’t have to be skeptical of a math book.
ulriclyons September 29, 2015 at 2:50 am
Ulrich, you gave no definition at all. Were we supposed to guess that you were using a particular defintion? How? We can’t read minds.
Three different people asked you in that thread what you meant by a heat wave, including myself. Obviously, none of us are mind readers.
Oh, please. I’ve publicly admitted being wrong more than any other blogger or any commenter I know … not because I’ve been wrong more often, but because when I am wrong, I’m one of the few folks who will admit it … and you’re absolutely not among us few. Heck, I’ve got two posts, one entitled “Wrong Again”, and the other entitled “Wrong Again, Again”, so your claim is obviously and demonstrably false.
However, I don’t want to fight that old fight again. I’m much more interested in this new interchange …
JUST LIKE YOU DID BEFORE, you are currently refusing to show us your numbers. And this time, everyone is sitting here watching you do it, so you can’t BS your way out by some handwaving about the WMO. It has already happened. This is the third time I’ve had to ask, and I’ve gotten nothing. Your claim that you would “never refuse such a thing” is totally falsified. It is clearly not true now, just as it was not true then.
Where is your whiz-bang prediction, Ulrich, INCLUDING NUMBERS? I mean, a few comments ago you were all proud about it and now you’ve gotten strangely shy …
w.
Nonsense, to your “In other words, Ulrich, when you claim there is one standard that is so well-known you don’t need to mention it, that just reveals your profound ignorance of the field.”
I replied:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1417282
Just another smoke screen to avoid fessing up to what I called you out on, i.e. CET in solar minima, your mistake with that July-August NAO, and even your bogus Nino pump that moves the opposite direction to the Pacific thermohaline circulation. I can safely give up on you ever being honest or civil.
Gosh, still no numbers from you, Ulric? I’ll remind you again of your claim:
Yet here you are, after four requests, doing exactly that, refusing to give us your numbers … the evidence is right there, folks, he’s all hat and no cattle.
Here’s your so-called prediction, and my request, in case you’ve forgotten it:
Four requests so far for the numbers to back up his mouth … still no numbers.
You be the judge.
w.
We were talking about UK heatwave figures hello? Long range forecasts have plenty of utility by indicating grades of cold relative to normals, such as below, much below, and very much below. That’s what the UK MetO do, if you think that’s “garbage. Trash. Crap. Useless twaddle. Nonsense.”, take it up with them. Why should I bother talking to you about it when you are not familiar with meteo standards and practice, you are exceedingly rude, and willfully ignorant, i.e. where you said: “Are you kidding? I try to avoid reading your claptrap at all, but somehow I get sucked in.”
ulriclyons September 30, 2015 at 1:19 am Edit
Nope. We were talking about your predictions. In the event, after being asked numerous times, you said you were using the standard official UK Met Office definition of a heat wave … but none of us knew that, THAT’S WHY WE WERE ASKING. You could have been using, for example, the WMO definition, or the NOAA definition, or the Aussie definition, there was no way for us to know.
You seem to think that when you say “a heat wave” everyone assumes “he must be using the UKMO definition” … doesn’t work like that.
In any case, there’s another problem with your after-the-fact claim that you were using the official UKMO definition of a heatwave … see below.
Please tell me that you are not holding the up UK Met Office, whose “forecasts” are often so vague as to be useless, and which have gotten more vague as their inaccuracy has been highlighted, as a paradigm of forecasting practice?
In any case, for your information, here’s what the UK Met Office says about their official definition of a heatwave, the definition you say you were depending on and we were stupid not to have intuited (emphasis mine):
In other words, your claim (both then and now) that you were using the official UK Met Office definition of a heat wave is no more true than most of your other claims … because there is no such definition, you just made it up.
Me not familiar with meteo standards? You’re the fool claiming that the UKMO has an official definition of a heat wave, not me.
And still, after all your blather and circumlocution, you have provided no numbers for your forecast. Dang. Color me unsurprised. And you were the man who claimed you would never do that, you would never refuse to divulge the numbers related to your forecast, hang on, let me get your exact claim …
And yet, here we are AGAIN, just like last time, with you refusing to give us the numbers needed to make your claimed prediction real.
And since you won’t reveal where you made this wonderful forecast or what it actually said, I gotta conclude that your so-called “forecast” was just handwaving of the best UKMO variety.
w.
Me making things up lol, that’s what you have just done.
“A heatwave refers to a prolonged period of hot weather, which may be accompanied by high humidity. We tend to use the World Meteorological Organization definition of a heatwave which is “when the daily maximum temperature of more than five consecutive days exceeds the average maximum temperature by 5 °C, the normal period being 1961-1990″. They are common in the northern and southern hemisphere during summer and classification and impacts vary globally.”
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/learn-about-the-weather/weather-phenomena/heatwave
It took me 10 seconds to google for that link. What exactly is your problem?
ulriclyons September 30, 2015 at 12:27 pm Edit
Since you are either too foolish or too arrogant to quote what you think I’m “making up”, I have no clue what you think I made up.
In any case, your quote says the same as mine—THERE IS NO OFFICIAL UK STANDARD FOR A HEATWAVE, as you incorrectly claimed. They “tend to use” one standard and the rest of the time they use other standards.
ulriclyons September 30, 2015 at 12:29 pm
My problem is that you continue to refuse to reveal the location and the details of the prediction you announced so proudly up above … just like you refused to reveal them last time we had this discussion. Yes, you eventually revealed them there … but here you haven’t revealed them at all, despite your boast above that you would never do such a thing:
w.
ulriclyons September 30, 2015 at 5:42 pm
Heatwave? Who’s talking about a heatwave? Well, you are, but that’s only because you’re doing your best to focus on last year, in order to evade the questions I asked about the prediction you boasted about IN THIS THREAD, viz:
That’s the third time I’ve quoted that and asked those questions. So wave your hands all you want, ulrich, and talk about your heatwave prediction ’til the cows come home. It may distract you, and some of the lurkers might be fooled, but I’m still patiently waiting for answers to my questions about the current prediction.
Now, if you don’t have the albonidigas to answer scientific questions, let us know and I’ll quit asking. Until then, you can’t just pretend that you’ve given us the numbers. Won’t work, don’t bother trying, just makes you look evasive.
w.
PS—Since you’ve refused to give us the numbers despite being asked four separate times, your following claim is already falsified:
There it is, folks …
“They “tend to use” one standard and the rest of the time they use other standards.”
Is that a fact? how much of the rest of the time do they use other standards in the UK, and which standards are these? as you seem to be such an expert on the subject.
“Since you are either too foolish or too arrogant to quote what you think I’m “making up”, I have no clue what you think I made up”
Exactly what you claimed that I had made up, i.e.
“In other words, your claim (both then and now) that you were using the official UK Met Office definition of a heat wave is no more true than most of your other claims … because there is no such definition, you just made it up.”
This is getting very boring.
“My problem is that you continue to refuse to reveal the location and the details of the prediction you announced so proudly up above”
A UK heatwave, and there was. The figures were on the old post, ““when the daily maximum temperature of more than five consecutive days exceeds the average maximum temperature by 5 °C, the normal period being 1961-1990″. Simple, end of.
i thought the standard definition of a heat wave here in the uk was more than two days in a row of sunshine 😉
Oh, very good …
w.