Has Bob Ward Heard Of The AMO?

Reposted from NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

AUGUST 30, 2021

By Paul Homewood

Bob Ward makes a fool of himself again!

image

Yes, the number of major Atlantic hurricanes has increased in the last four decades, but this is because of the AMO, not climate change, as NOAA explain:

image

https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/faq/amo_faq.php

The AMO moved into its warm phase around 1995, following thirty years in its cold phase. Prior to that it was in its warm cycle between the 1930s and 50s:

image

https://psl.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/gcos_wgsp/tsanalysis.pl?tstype1=91&tstype2=0&year1=&year2=&itypea=0&axistype=0&anom=0&plotstyle=0&climo1=&climo2=&y1=&y2=&y21=&y22=&length=&lag=&iall=0&iseas=0&mon1=0&mon2=11&Submit=Calculate+Results

And when we check out the data for major Atlantic hurricanes, we find that they were just as frequent as now during that earlier warm phase:

image

https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd-faq/#1569507388495-a5aa91bb-254c

There has been no trend in major hurricanes worldwide since 1990, confirming the cyclical effect of the AMO:

image

http://climatlas.com/tropical/

This is why the IPCC say there is “low confidence” in long term (multi decadal to centennial) trends in tropical cyclones.

If the clown Bob Ward does not know this, he is incompetent.

4.8 30 votes
Article Rating
219 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 31, 2021 2:07 am

Data for a single cyclone season in a single cyclone basin do not contain information about global warming.

Please see

https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/08/27/climate-change-hurricanes-2/

Duane
Reply to  Chaamjamal
August 31, 2021 4:41 am

Even without complex statistical regression analysis, the paltry 930 mb minimum eye pressure measured for Ida at its strongest, at landfall, doesn’t even make the top 30 list for the last half century. Wilma, the top ranked of those storms with detailed record keeping of the last 120 years or so since the forerunner of NOAA was established, had a minimum eye pressure of 892 mb.

Measurements of max sustained windspeeds are notoriously imprecise and inaccurate, given that anemometers tend to fail at extremely high wind speeds, and the eyewall has to pass precisely over a reliable wind speed measuring station. Airborne measurements are only estimates with little precision. Minimum eye BPs, however are very accurate and precise. That’s why all tropical cyclones are best ranked in intensity by minimum BP.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Chaamjamal
September 1, 2021 10:52 am

Except when the weather is “bad.” Then it is “evidence” of the “climate crisis.” (/sarc)

Note, by comparison, the complete lack of any mention of “climate change” in the same breath as mention of the longest period on record (which they’re always fond of pointing out when it’s “bad” weather) without a single major hurricane (Category 3+) hitting the US.

They are clearly spewing agitprop when they blame “climate change” for “bad” weather while they resolutely refuse to give “climate change” credit for “good” weather.

Reply to  AGW is Not Science
September 1, 2021 11:39 am

AGW:
Bingo!
All weather is consistent with “climate change” – even the “good” weather.

And here in central Arizona we are having another fine day that is completely
consistent with “climate change” [it’s only gonna be 91 F today: a cool one!. LOL]

mikeyj
August 31, 2021 2:18 am

He knows, but he is betting his readers don’t. This is about indoctrination, not information.

Vuk
Reply to  mikeyj
August 31, 2021 5:17 am

Hurricanes and N. Atlantic Sea Surface temperature (AMO) follow combination of sun’s and planet’s natural cyclical events, the AMO will eventually catch-up since the oceans take their time.
Sun is not doing much at the moment, after bursting into activity couple of months ago as you can see in the graph.
The August’s sunspot count is about 15 points on the old scale (as used here for purpose of comparison with the last two notable solar minima) or 21 on the new revised method of counting.

SSN-3-minimaA.gif
Last edited 19 days ago by Vuk
Drake
Reply to  Vuk
August 31, 2021 9:16 am

Vuc,

It appears that “THEY” continue to count specks as spots inflating the sunspot number. Today spaceweather.com says the number is 41 where there is only 1 legitimate spot group and a separate speck that is numbered.

Would 10.7 flux be a better thing to graph? When was the last time it was over 100?

Drake

ren
Reply to  Vuk
August 31, 2021 11:42 pm

Solar activity determines whether a hurricane will reach North America. When the north Atlantic jet stream is strong (latitudinal) then the tropical wave in the tropics moves in the opposite direction. When a strong solar wind reaches Earth, the north Atlantic jet stream becomes latitudinal (zonal circulation).

Last edited 18 days ago by ren
GeorgeInSanDiego
August 31, 2021 2:23 am

During the decade 2010-2019 only ten hurricanes made landfall in the Continental USA, the lowest number ever recorded (Source NOAA AOML). Some climate crisis.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  GeorgeInSanDiego
September 1, 2021 10:57 am

+ Infinity

Weather is only “climate” when it’s “bad.” /sarc

BallBounces
August 31, 2021 2:24 am

Yes, but the hurricanes prior to global warming were good hurricanes.

J P Kalishek
August 31, 2021 2:32 am

I’m reminded of when they started giving names to storms not cyclonic and then some wags made the claim of more named storms as proof of AGW

Matthew Siekierski
Reply to  J P Kalishek
August 31, 2021 3:31 am

Similar to how the “number of cities with record high temperatures” includes cities that don’t have a reliable temperature record stretching all that far back.

griff
August 31, 2021 3:26 am

but it was the warmth in the waters of the Gulf which made this the most severe storm to hit Louisiana… and that warmth got there because of human CO2 related climate change

Reply to  griff
August 31, 2021 3:46 am

Are you Bob Ward, the climate clown ? 😀

Jim Gorman
Reply to  griff
August 31, 2021 3:59 am

I guess it depends on what the definition of severe is. I’m assuming you think Katrina was a mild hurricane!

garboard
Reply to  griff
August 31, 2021 4:38 am

Camille was the second strongest ( low pressure ) hurricane to ever make landfall in the gulf , in 1969 .

garboard
Reply to  garboard
August 31, 2021 4:40 am

strongest ever in the gulf ,; second only to the Florida keys hurricane of 1935

Reply to  garboard
August 31, 2021 2:11 pm

There have been any number of category 5 hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. Not all of them struck the U.S.
The minor fact that hurricanes only have been tracked for a hundred plus years, and not rigorously tracked for most of those hundred plus years.

“Hurricane Andrew was the strongest and most devastating hurricane on record to hit southern Florida. It struck South Miami-Dade County (then known as Dade County) during the pre-dawn hours on Monday, August 24th, 1992. It caused an estimated $26 billion damage in the United States making it at the time the most expensive natural disaster in United States history, not to be surpassed until Hurricane Katrina 13 years later.”

Andrew buzz sawed across Florida, regained Category 5 status in the Gulf and hit very near where Hurricane Ida recently hit.

Hurricane Gilbert in 1989, etc. etc.

The Spanish proved beyond any doubt that category 5 hurricanes can be frequent in Florida waters. Nor is it uncommon that hurricanes cross from the Atlantic into the Gulf of Mexico.

MarkW
Reply to  garboard
August 31, 2021 5:31 am

But Camille didn’t hit Louisiana, so it doesn’t count. Notice how carefully griff cherry picks the data he wants to use.

Reply to  garboard
August 31, 2021 1:37 pm

Only in the relatively modern era.

Reply to  griff
August 31, 2021 4:46 am

The depth and breadth of ignorance in that statement boogles the mind. It is so willfully stupid hard to know where to begin.

But I’ll throw a few points out to show how stupid it is Griff.

– Galveston Hurricane of 1900 – Was that “human CO2 related”? Landfall was Sept 8, 1900, It was estimated to be a Cat 4, and around 8,000 people died.

– “that warmth got there” Would the Gulf be that warm without the extra 140 ppm CO2? There’s nothing unusual about thise waters being that warm at the end of August.

—most severe storm. Katrina was in all measures a more severe (powerfu) storm than Ida. Katrina was a Cat 3 at Land fall but had weakened from a Cat5 due to an Eye wall replacement cycle prior to landfall. Katrina reached a min pressure of 903 mb, Ida never got below 930 mb. The hurricane-strength windfield, storm surge, and rain fall totals of Katrina easily.were much larger than Ida.

Griff, you are so dumb that you think you’re smart.

beng135
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
August 31, 2021 9:15 am

And there’s also the cyclones/typhoons in the long past that ravaged the Bay of Bengal, the Philippines, Taiwan, Japan & even mainland China w/massive loss of lives — sometimes hundreds of thousands. Why is griffy or any wacko-environut always narrowly focused on just America? Because that’s where most of the supportive media fear-mongering originates — when it bleeds it leads. But cultural-marxists and all the enviro-kooks aren’t interested in any history other than what’s useful for their agenda.

Last edited 19 days ago by beng135
Abolition Man
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
August 31, 2021 11:34 am

Joel,
The griffter is in training for the All-time Dunning Kruger Effect Prize! There is some serious competition amongst the other climate morons, so he’s giving it his all!

Bill
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
August 31, 2021 12:57 pm

Ben Franklin said; “We are all born ignorant. But one must work very hard to remain stupid.”

chickenhawk
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
August 31, 2021 4:22 pm

I think he gets paid for how may people reply to him. Say something really dumb, and the replies roll in. Maybe it’s a group-bot. Maybe a group of junior high schoolers trying to win eco-brownie points…

Mike
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
August 31, 2021 7:58 pm

The depth and breadth of ignorance in that statement boogles the mind. It is so willfully stupid hard to know where to begin.”

We should all now understand that there is no point in beginning. Life’s too short to engage the drive-by bullshit merchant.

Sara
Reply to  griff
August 31, 2021 5:22 am

Ida makes landfall and immediately declines into a tropical storm, Griffypoo. And we immediately get cooler, less humid weather. Try that on for size. 59F this morning at 5AM instead of 72F. HUGE difference, fella.

Please start paying attention to things, like making sure you’re wearing trousers before you leave the house. 🙂

I’m really getting worried about you.

Last edited 19 days ago by Sara
Drake
Reply to  Sara
August 31, 2021 9:19 am

griff leave the basement?, never. No need for trousers.

Reverend Michael
Reply to  griff
August 31, 2021 5:29 am

your comment made me LOL 🙂

philincalifornia
Reply to  Reverend Michael
August 31, 2021 8:21 am

If he’d shown you his math, you could’ve been ROFLing.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
August 31, 2021 5:30 am

The Gulf gets warm every summer.
The amount of warming this year isn’t at all unusual.
Ida had winds that were a little bit higher than Katrina, however Katrina was massive compared to Ida. The total amount of energy in Katrina dwarfed Ida.

Reply to  griff
August 31, 2021 6:31 am

I have scheduled an appointment with an attorney to seek legal action against the griffter’s continued blatant false testimony. His thinly disguised attempt to discredit ZERO WINDMILLS AND SOLAR PANELS NOW will no longer be ignored.
“Nawlins” is known to some as the “Chocolate” City…and others as the Green City due to the trees….which have apparently been blown down and limbs broke the windmills and water has flooded the solar panels thus turning out the lights in the Green City.

Last edited 19 days ago by Anti-griff
pigs_in_space
Reply to  griff
August 31, 2021 7:08 am

Here comes “nutter Griff from the little island in the Atlantic” expounding about US weather.
Something he knows sweet F-A about, but hey….why not?

Editor
Reply to  griff
August 31, 2021 8:05 am

The surface waters in the Gulf have been more than warm enough for thousands of years already, yet just a few years ago there was a 12 year time of ZERO Major hurricane landfall that had ended despite that the waters were already warm enough to generate hurricanes the entire time.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  griff
August 31, 2021 8:55 am

….and this is another troll brownie point for daily attendance

Meab
Reply to  griff
August 31, 2021 10:35 am

Once again, griffter, you show your ignorance. It’s NOT just the sea surface temperature that drives convective energy into the atmosphere, hurricanes are solar driven. Like every single other process that converts heat to work (wind energy), it’s the DIFFERENCE between the air and sea temperatures that helps or hinders solar energy in wind energy growth. You CAN’T make ANY work (energy) without a heat difference. Look up Carnot’s law. The small rate of warming from CO2 happens in the atmosphere – the ocean’s temp lags behind owing to its huge thermal mass. That (very slightly) DAMPS hurricane growth as the atmosphere, on average, is losing (slightly) more energy to the ocean, not less. After all, there are no hurricanes in the winter because solar driven wind energy is less and it’s quickly lost to the ocean. So why do we still have hurricanes? The sun still shines, solar insolation is greatest in the areas where hurricanes form during hurricane season, and the very small warming that we’ve seen in the atmosphere (that very slightly damps hurricane growth) is completely swamped by natural variability.

Reply to  griff
August 31, 2021 1:36 pm

Ignorance on parade, marching to the plastic bugles and cheap plastic whistle.

From Nola.com:

“At 150 mph, Ida equaled two other hurricanes on Sunday for the strongest in recorded history to strike Louisiana.

One was Laura, still fresh in memory after blasting Cameron Parish and the Lake Charles area in 2020. It killed 30 people.

The other 150 mph storm dates from 1856, before hurricanes were given official names, and killed more than 200 on or near what is today a series of islets known as Isles Dernieres,

On the night of Aug. 10, 1856.”

giffie proves through abject willful ignorance that global warming is false, again.

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  griff
August 31, 2021 3:21 pm

“but it was the warmth in the waters of the Gulf which made this the most severe storm to hit Louisiana… and that warmth got there because of human CO2 related climate change”

Ida know about that…

Last edited 18 days ago by Michael S. Kelly
AGW is Not Science
Reply to  griff
September 1, 2021 11:07 am

Now show us the empirical evidence that “human CO2” has anything to do with “warmth in waters” of the Gulf. Or with increasing temperatures in general. Show us the Earth’s climate history which should clearly show this notion of atmospheric CO2 as the “control knob” of the Earth’s temperature.

You can’t.

Because there is no such empirical evidence.

Because CO2 does no such thing.

Ron Long
August 31, 2021 3:34 am

“If the clown Bob Ward does not know this, he is incompetent.” Some part of the CAGW false statements is incompetence, but the majority, as noted by mikeyj above, is a scheme to control the population. The evidence for this is how smoothly these people switch from CAGW to Covid to LGBTQI rights to CRT, etc., and their enablers are people like the management at CNN. What US President in their right mind would acknowledge the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan? Where was the election? The mid-term (in USA) elections will start the correction process, and President Kamala Harris will be defeated in 2024. Unfortunatly we have to wait for it.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Ron Long
August 31, 2021 3:59 am

There are people who would like to see absolute control over and silencing of those who hold dissenting views. Their response is like that of the fat cook and of (the fat?) Mr Bumble when Oliver Twist asked for more food. They are bullies.

DocSiders
Reply to  Ron Long
August 31, 2021 4:20 am

You assume fair elections will ever be possible in the future…after the Courts have enshrined Election Fraud into law using the legal theory that somehow no voter in the Nation has “Standing” in cases of Voter Fraud.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  DocSiders
August 31, 2021 5:30 am

Elections for the House of Representatives are local so you have to cheat in a lot of different places. You can’t just average out the Republican votes with a huge number of Democrat votes in one large city, like you can for state-wide offices.

Ron Long
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
August 31, 2021 7:52 am

And on the national level we have the electoral College. The leftists can go ahead and cheat all they want in California, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey, here’s their votes, now add up the Electoral College votes. This is why leftists want to abolish the Electoral College, so voting in population Centers can overwhelm the popular vote.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Ron Long
September 1, 2021 11:22 am

Not the popular vote, that can be won by the coastal population centers overwhelming the rest of the country.

MarkW
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
August 31, 2021 8:11 am

However, with skillful gerrymandering, you can distribute enough of those big city residents into each congressional district to ensure a win for the Democrats in almost all of them.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  MarkW
August 31, 2021 1:57 pm

And with equally skilful gerrymandering the Republicans are putting all the urban voters in small numbers of districts ensuring that a disproportionate number of Republicans are elected. In North Carolina for instance Republicans got 10 out of 13 congressional seats despite the Democrats getting more votes in total.

Derg
Reply to  Izaak Walton
August 31, 2021 4:27 pm

Trump Russia colluuuusion 😉

beng135
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
August 31, 2021 9:39 am

True, but they’ve been working hard at cementing the election-fraud mechanism now since even before 2016 (Rush Limbaugh predicted the destruction/elimination of the fair electoral process). The national election-fraud work is complete in the important state and certainly are and have been working to defraud the state/local election processes. Prb’ly mostly complete in the (important) state elections by 2022. The amount and level of fraud & corruption is always much worse than one imagines.

Last edited 19 days ago by beng135
AndyHce
Reply to  Ron Long
August 31, 2021 11:29 am

If you count up how many governments have been created through elections and how many without, I think you would find the numbers very uncomparable. Unelected would come out with a far larger total.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Ron Long
September 1, 2021 11:10 am

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/2-top-fda-officials-resigned-over-the-biden-administrations-booster-shot-plan-saying-it-insisted-on-the-policy-before-the-agency-approved-it-reports-say/ar-AANYngp?ocid=uxbndlbing

Apparently, Mr. “I’m Gonna Listen to the Science” has now decided he prefers to dictate what the “Science” is in advance, as opposed to suffering the inconvenience of waiting for the scientists.

Or maybe he now has the power of Johnny Carson from his Tonight Show skit…

nyolci
August 31, 2021 3:43 am

Yes, the number of major Atlantic hurricanes has increased in the last four decades, but this is because of the AMO, not climate change, as NOAA explain:

There are multiple problems with this. The most important is that even NOAA’s explanation does tie increased hurricane activity to warming, regardless of the source of the warming. So I have to conclude you are quite satisfied by the conclusion that warming means increased hurricane activity.
Now back to AMO. NOAA actually doesn’t say AMO is the sole reason, and if specifically asked, they would explicitly deny this sole attribution. But there are legitimate reasons for doubting the existence of AMO all together. This is new research, and is has given explanation to the apparent existence of a purported AMO like signal both in the instrumental and the paleo-climatic record. This research has already been covered by WUWT. Mann, the original discoverer of AMO is the one who has shown it doesn’t exist. He has a layman level introduction to the topic: https://michaelmann.net/content/rise-and-fall-atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation

Derg
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 3:52 am

Indeed, Mann is a clown.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 4:10 am

Apparently NOAA thinks the AMO exists. Are you saying NOAA is wrong? If so, are they also wrong about other things – like Global Warming?

nyolci
Reply to  Tim Gorman
August 31, 2021 4:29 am

Are you saying NOAA is wrong?

Well, you haven’t listened. Again. Mann explicitly said the AMO signal DID exist. Its attribution to a genuine climatic oscillation was wrong. The AMO signal was the artifact of aerosol forcing. And here comes the catch. Even NOAA says this:

Is the AMO a natural phenomenon, or is it related to global warming? Instruments have observed AMO cycles only for the last 150 years, not long enough to conclusively answer this question. [A few sentences about paleo-climatic data omitted] This is clearly longer than modern man has been affecting climate, so the AMO is probably a natural climate oscillation

So whether NOAA is wrong is not that clear cut at all. They are much more nuanced (as expected from scientists).
And anyway, what they claim is that warming gives you increased hurricane activity. Now warming is taken as granted here, so as its connection with hurricanes. You seem to accept these without any hesitation just because the source references AMO? This is clearly pathetic.

Last edited 19 days ago by nyolci
Tim Gorman
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 4:38 am

You are avoiding the issue. It doesn’t matter what causes the AMO to oscillate if that oscillation contributes to global warming. Either it does or it doesn’t.

Warming gives us more hurricanes? How does it do that? Warming is also supposed to give us greater high altitude winds – which breaks down hurricanes.

So which is it? Warming gives us more hurricanes or gives us fewer hurricanes? Like most global warming alarmists you seem to want to have it both ways.

If the AMO follows a natural cycle then it doesn’t contribute to a man-made warming. As usual, you want to say NOAA is wrong when they don’t agree with you and to call us “science deniers” when we don’t agree with them. Typical hypocrite.

nyolci
Reply to  Tim Gorman
August 31, 2021 8:01 am

It doesn’t matter what causes the AMO to oscillate

It doesn’t oscillate. This is the thing. This was an epiphenomenon. Aerosol forcing (ie. reduced transparency) produced the signal. It is global warming that is showing itself now.

Warming gives us more hurricanes?

Well, I kindly refer you to the source you seem to have accepted immediately (NOAA, bold is mine):

During warm phases of the AMO, the numbers of tropical storms that mature into severe hurricanes is much greater than during cool phases, at least twice as many.

Remember, this is the North Atlantic region specifically.

As usual, you want to say NOAA is wrong when they don’t agree with you

I’ve never said they are wrong. AMO’s signal has been there, they could match it with hurricane activity. They had a position marked with “probably” as to the actual attribution of this signal. If you read their faq, you can see attribution almost irrelevant there.

philincalifornia
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 8:32 am

Jeeeeez, a 12-year old doing a science fair project could eyeball the purple graph up there and see there’s an oscillation.

The AMO is part of climate change – the real one not the Climate Crackpot Cult’s, i.e. your pathetic excuse-ridden climate change.

nyolci
Reply to  philincalifornia
August 31, 2021 3:23 pm

12-year old doing a science fair project could eyeball

Gee, phil, why do you have to make a fool of yourself AGAIN? How many times I have to write it down that the fcukin SIGNAL IS THERE? Its attribution has been fixed by the study, you doofus. (By the way, in science eyeballing is not considered a proof, and particularly your eyeballs are completely useless.)

Tim Gorman
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 8:43 am

If it gets colder, then warmer, then colder, and on and on…. then it oscillates.

“Well, I kindly refer you to the source you seem to have accepted immediately (NOAA, bold is mine):”

I point you to the operative word “severe”. You have to read the whole sentence for its entire meaning. The word “more” is not the complete context. This is because the high winds are damped during colder periods. During warmer periods only the strongest hurricanes survive the high winds tearing them apart.

While you may see more severe hurricanes you actually see fewer in total.

Attribution? It’s not obvious you even understand the word let alone the process. Attribution requires the ability to prove a causal link, not just a correlation. Most of the climate attribution being done today is nothing more than correlation, not causation.

Last edited 19 days ago by Tim Gorman
MarkW
Reply to  Tim Gorman
August 31, 2021 12:23 pm

But you don’t understand. Mann used a model to prove that it isn’t an oscillation. Don’t you guys believe in computers?

nyolci
Reply to  Tim Gorman
August 31, 2021 12:58 pm

If it gets colder, then warmer, then colder, and on and on…. then it oscillates.

Really? A volcano erupts and then it’s dormant, and then erupts again etc. Would you call it an oscillation? Are you really this stupid? Furthermore, the paper is about internal oscillation, something that is intrinsic in the climate system. Well, the lack of internal oscillation. There may even be a harmonic outside forcing manifesting itself in the AMO. What Mann has proven that the system isn’t oscillating by itself.

I point you to the operative word “severe”

Oops, I left out the word “major” before “hurricanes”. The whole thing is correct then. Because that’s what this article is all about, attribution of the increase in number of major hurricanes. Is it AMO (Taken as natural variability here)? AGW?

Attribution requires the ability to prove a causal link, not just a correlation

Mann has just proven the harmonic signal was there by chance. There’s no internal oscillation. Jesus, how tiring your bullshiting is…

Tim Gorman
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 4:46 pm

Would you call it an oscillation?

Yes, it *is* an oscillation whose period is based on the build-up of magma and pressure on a regular basis. Just like Ol’ Faithful spouting on a regular basis.

” Are you really this stupid?”

The fact that you have no idea what an oscillation is seems to be sufficient to show which one of us is stupid!

“Well, the lack of internal oscillation. There may even be a harmonic outside forcing manifesting itself in the AMO.”

You don’t have a clue how an oscillator works, do you? What do you suppose triggers a transistor oscillator to oscillate?

“Because that’s what this article is all about, attribution of the increase in number of major hurricanes. Is it AMO (Taken as natural variability here)? AGW?”

Which is it? Does global warming cause more hurricanes in total or just more “major” ones? You *really* don’t have a clue, do you?

“Internal oscillation”? Again, you really don’t have a clue, do you?

MarkW
Reply to  Tim Gorman
September 1, 2021 7:11 am

He believes that a models can prove anything about the weather/climate.
Yes, he is that stupid.

Mike
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 8:11 pm

What Mann has proven that the system isn’t oscillating by itself.”

Are you seriously so stupid as to believe anyone – let alone the highly morally compromised Mann – is capable of proving a complete understanding of the climate system given the few short centuries we have been observing and recording it. The innate ignorance and arrogance of people like you – and yes there are legions of them – even at this late stage, is still breathtaking – and laughable.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 9:16 am

From NCAR @ https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/atlantic-multi-decadal-oscillation-amo

“The Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) has been identified as a coherent mode of natural variability occurring in the North Atlantic Ocean with an estimated period of 60-80 years”

Maybe you should examine all the data instead of just that with which you agree.

Please note the reference to NATURAL VARIABILITY, IOW, not man-made nor due to global warming.

Why do you think it is trying to handwaved away? It is anathema to CO2 warming.

nyolci
Reply to  Jim Gorman
August 31, 2021 1:00 pm

Maybe you should examine all the data instead of just that with which you agree.

Why? This is what scientists (ie. well trained experts in this field) are doing for me. I just read the conclusions 🙂

Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 1:10 pm

If one scientist is clueless in, let say, statistics and data, I present you Michel Mann. 😀 😀 😀

Mike
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 8:12 pm

I just read the conclusions” (and swallow them whole)

Yet another massive mistake

Mike
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 8:02 pm

Mann explicitly said the AMO signal DID exist. Its attribution to a genuine climatic oscillation was wrong.”

No one give a flying f**k what Mann said.

Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 4:50 am

The existance of the AMO has been proven x^10 times at least. Only M.Mann seems to be blind on 2 eyes as it doesn’t fit his narrative.

Last edited 19 days ago by Krishna Gans
nyolci
Reply to  Krishna Gans
August 31, 2021 7:52 am

The existance of the AMO has been proven x^10 times at least

Exactly. The signal exists, and is pretty strong. It’s attribution to an internal oscillation is false. That is Mann’s new result. He has proven that the AMO is simply the result of aerosol forcing.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 8:14 am

He claimed it was due to aerosol forcing, the belief that he proved anything is your delusion.
The mere fact that there is no correlation between aerosol loads and AMO, and the fact that evidence for an AMO goes back long before man was producing significant aerosols is sufficient to completely disprove his conjecture.
However since it’s useful to the cause, this latest claim will be trumpeted over and over again by all the useful idiots, just like the hockeystick.

Reply to  MarkW
August 31, 2021 9:51 am

Mark, you need to remember that to the true believer, the Blessed Mann needs only to declare something to be so for it to be so.
I mean, you wouldn’t challenge the Archangel Gabriel, would you?!

nyolci
Reply to  Newminster
August 31, 2021 10:22 am

needs only to declare something

small correction: declare AND prove 🙂 The problem with climate denial is the second one. You can’t prove it. You always declare it.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 12:24 pm

The problem is, he didn’t prove it. A model proves nothing.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
August 31, 2021 2:29 pm

A model proves nothing.

I know you don’t understand this. But let’s settle in that. You don’t have to fight it. Just calm down. I understand you, you are scared by these confusing things, by the commies who are after you etc. Don’t you worry, you’re just an ordinary idiot, you don’t have to understand if you can’t.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 3:10 pm

Translation of any nyolci post: I can’t prove anything I have claimed, but my ego won’t let me admit it

Lrp
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 2:20 pm

The burden of proof is on the ones who make claims.

MarkW
Reply to  Lrp
August 31, 2021 3:10 pm

Not in climate science.

nyolci
Reply to  Lrp
August 31, 2021 3:20 pm

The burden of proof is on the ones who make claims.

Yep, and it’s done with a peer reviewed paper. Now this is accepted scientific knowledge. At this point the burden of proof flips, now you have to publish a peer reviewed paper… I don’t continue. You can never publish anything. FYI “paper” here is a study, it’s usually handed in electronically, not actually using “paper”.

Lrp
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 7:05 pm

Rubbish! Peer review is not accepted scientific knowledge; empirical proof is. You might impress the ladies in your village with your talk but here you come across just a big mouth lightweight

MarkW
Reply to  Lrp
September 1, 2021 7:14 am

Peer review is a bunch of people getting together and agreeing to approve each other’s papers so that they can all continue to get government grants.

Mike
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 8:17 pm

Yep, and it’s done with a peer reviewed paper.”

And the child-like incomprehension marches on……

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
September 1, 2021 7:13 am

First you have to prove that your model is accurate and reliable.
Just declaring that you have a model that proves what you want to believe, only convinces the willfully gullible.
You for example.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  nyolci
September 1, 2021 11:52 am

Done with a “peer reviewed” paper?!

BWAH-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

That’s why “sciences” with a lot less unknowns than the study of “climate,” much less the almost purely speculative manure that passes for “climate science,” have a “replication crisis” – because of how “infallible” the process of “peer review” is.

News flash – “Papers” don’t “prove” anything. “Models” don’t “prove” anything. The opinions of so-called “scientists,” regardless of how many or what alleged percentage, don’t “prove” anything.

Real Science is based on observation of the real world and experiment. Your “climate” crap is nothing but extrapolations of hypothetical bullshit that have zero empirical support.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  nyolci
September 1, 2021 11:30 am

LMFAO. Where is the “PROOF” that atmospheric CO2 drives the Earth’s temperature?!

Show us, oh fountain of ignorance, the Earth’s climate history which should illustrate this CO2 “control knob” beyond any doubt!

Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 8:16 am

Proven ? Yes he has proven not to be a scientist, but a religious believer.
You, respective Mann will tell us, aerosol forcing is based on cycles ?comment image

nyolci
Reply to  Krishna Gans
August 31, 2021 10:25 am

You, respective Mann will tell us, aerosol forcing is based on cycles ?

No, and it’s funny that no one have even claimed this. The resulting signal had a strong harmonic component with a peak at 60 years. By chance. That’s why a cycle was hypothesized. Science has advanced, now we know there’s no cycle.

Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 11:56 am

Harmonic aerosol forcing, let it rain brain, Sir, a lot of, please !!

nyolci
Reply to  Krishna Gans
August 31, 2021 12:17 pm

Harmonic aerosol forcing

Yep, by chance. Huh, it’s tiring debating with retards… If you remove aerosol forcing, the signal disappears.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 12:29 pm

Ah yes, the classic warmist retreat.

Anyone who doesn’t accept your declarations as proven science is just a retard.

Go running back to your mother and tell her that those evil skeptics just refuse to worship as you do.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
August 31, 2021 2:21 pm

Anyone who doesn’t accept your declarations as proven science is just a retard.

This is not mine, and this is not a declaration. This is a published scientific finding.

Go running back to your mother

I have to tell you not everyone reacts to counter arguments like you. IRL most people don’t run to mami. You should not do that either, and please stop advocating this ‘cos this is a statement about your real (mental) age as well.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 3:12 pm

It’s published, that’s the only thing you got write.
It is neither scientific, not is it a finding.
It’s just the output of an unproven model.

Socialists really do get upset when others fail to worship as they do.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 7:56 pm

Has it been independently replicated? A study in and of itself is meaningless without replication. And I stress the word independent.

Mike
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 8:20 pm

 This is a published scientific finding.”

95% of which are wrong
Idiot

Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 1:13 pm

Simple story, Mann called the internal oscillation “harmonic aeorosol forcing” – that’s it and all. 😀
And the “harmonic aerosolforcing” started in 16th century 😀 😀 😀

Last edited 18 days ago by Krishna Gans
nyolci
Reply to  Krishna Gans
August 31, 2021 2:23 pm

Simple story, Mann called the internal oscillation “harmonic aeorosol forcing”

No. He has proved that there’s no internal oscillation. The harmonic component is there by chance, and the whole phenomenon is the result of external forcing. EXTREMELY slow learner you are.

Last edited 18 days ago by nyolci
Mike
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 8:21 pm

EXTREMELY slow learner you are.”

Extremely thick headed you are……

Jim Gorman
Reply to  nyolci
September 1, 2021 6:53 am

You do realize that if it is caused by aerosols then that means aerosols move up and down at the same harmonic frequency.

Got any proof?

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
September 1, 2021 7:17 am

You can’t prove anything with models.
Once again, instead of actually defending his claims, nyolci is reduced to yelling about how the people he considers to be experts agree with him and this proves everyone who doesn’t agree with him is an idiot.

Then again, while socialists are big on telling each other how smart they are. The only people they ever impress are other socialists.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 12:27 pm

One paper, based on a homegrown model, and all of science is settled.
And you accuse skeptics of not being able to do science.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
August 31, 2021 2:25 pm

And you accuse skeptics of not being able to do science.

No. I point out to science deniers that they are denying science.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 3:13 pm

Mann isn’t doing science. He’s running an unproven program to generate the results that he was looking for.
I know you can get away with such nonsense in climate “science”, but real science requires real world data.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
August 31, 2021 3:32 pm

real science requires real world data

I know, I know. I promise I don’t use data from Tolkien’s world any longer.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
September 1, 2021 7:18 am

You might as well. Models are as much fiction as anything Tolkien wrote.

Mike
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 8:22 pm

No. I point out to science deniers that they are denying science.”

Scientism in action

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 11:06 pm

I get it
You are the comedy version of the Griff collective.

I feel sorry for you

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
September 1, 2021 7:18 am

The guy who doesn’t even know what science is, accuses others of denying science.
It would be funny if it weren’t so tragic.

Lrp
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 2:22 pm

Computer modelling is not science

nyolci
Reply to  Lrp
August 31, 2021 3:33 pm

Computer modelling is not science

Sounds like an election slogan. No wonder ‘cos it’s worth like an election slogan 🙂

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
September 1, 2021 7:19 am

Care to refute it? Or is ridiculing those who don’t worship as you do the limit of your intellectual capabilities?

Mike
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 8:19 pm

Science has advanced, now we know there’s no cycle.”

Oh yes NOW we know there’s no cycle! Wow!
Oh BTW, do we also now know the sun has no cycle?

Moron.

MarkW
Reply to  Mike
September 1, 2021 7:20 am

The sacred models have spoken, all who don’t agree are heretics.

beng135
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 9:49 am

He has proven that the AMO is simply the result of aerosol forcing.

ROFLMFAO! And so are the Pacific ENSO cycles, and pretty much all the other cycles.

/sarc in case you’re completely clueless

Last edited 19 days ago by beng135
nyolci
Reply to  beng135
August 31, 2021 10:30 am

And so are the Pacific ENSO cycles

I have to admit debating here is extremely tiring. Okay, science denial has reasons, like retardation. So slowly: I was talking about AMO. If you read the (very easy) introduction (without those scary numbers etc), you can see Mann explicitly say ENSO is a valid cycle. FYI he is not against cycles in general. This is not something pathological against cycles. AMO simply has no evidentiary basis.

Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 12:08 pm

Proxies showing the AMO signal in reconstructions back to 16th century, so show us, where are the harmonic aeorosol forcings located ?
The Kaplan SST reconstruction are base ofthe reconstructing these datas.

Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation – overview
Look for aeorosol forcing 😀

nyolci
Reply to  Krishna Gans
August 31, 2021 12:20 pm

Proxies showing the AMO signal in reconstructions back to 16th century

Again, slowly: yes. No one denies this. That’s why Mann hypothesized a natural cycle back in the 90s and called it AMO. But it turned out that without aerosol forcing the signal disappears.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 12:33 pm

It really doesn’t take much to convince someone who desperately wants to be convinced.

Models are not science.

BTW, the whole point of bringing up the 16th century was to show that without any aerosols, there was an AMO. That alone is sufficient to disprove Mann and his acolytes. If you knew anything about science or logic, this wouldn’t have to be explained to you over and over again.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
August 31, 2021 2:17 pm

BTW, the whole point of bringing up the 16th century was to show that without any aerosols, there was an AMO

Khm, volcanism khm… Do you understand this at all? Fcuk, it’s like teaching a cow how to count to 3. Impossible.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 3:15 pm

First off, nobody has been able to demonstrate that in the real world, aerosols have as much influence on temperatures as Mann and his acolytes want to believe.
Secondly, the lack of volcanic eruptions during the critical time periods is quite telling.

Just because you desperately want something to be true, doesn’t make it true.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
August 31, 2021 3:28 pm

nobody has been able to demonstrate that in the real world,

You do have something to publish, don’t you? Don’t deny. This will be earth shattering! Go for it, Mark, you’re gonna revolutionize this field. The same applies to your very sharp observation about the lack of volcanic eruptions. Your scholarly opinion shouldn’t be held back in the beautiful cathedral of your beautiful brain. We are doomed without your deep insight.

Last edited 18 days ago by nyolci
MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
September 1, 2021 7:21 am

You really seem to be convinced that the mere act of publishing something proves it.
How many papers were published proving that stress caused ulcers?
How many papers were published proving that the continents were fixed in place?

With every post, you demonstrate that you don’t have a clue as to what real science is.

Richard M
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 7:13 pm

Wow, a 60 year cycle in volcanism going back 400 years. When are you going to publish this amazing discovery? Could you share your data with the rest of us?

eyesonu
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 11:41 pm

How do you know that a cow can’t count to three? Have you tried?

Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 1:17 pm

So, from one day to the other, the internal oscillation disappears to be replaced by harmonic aerosol forcings.
And you believe to talkabout science, really ? Mann and Science, and science and nyolci, no, that doesn’t harmonise at all. 😀

nyolci
Reply to  Krishna Gans
August 31, 2021 2:14 pm

So, from one day to the other, the internal oscillation disappears to be replaced by harmonic aerosol forcings.

No. Gee, you’re an extremely slow learner. The harmonic component is very likely there by chance. The meat is this: the whole thing is not an internal cyclic phenomenon but externally forced.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  nyolci
September 1, 2021 7:05 am

First, cite a study showing harmonic variance in aerosols that affect the AMO.

Second, “The harmonic component is there by chance.” Oh Wow, something in the natural world occurs by chance! Where is the math showing this is a random event that happens purely by chance?

Last, current models are not fully physics based. That means their outputs DO have an element of chance involved. You want to be a good person and tell us about the uncertainty in Mann’s model and what is the chance the output is there purely by chance.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
September 1, 2021 7:24 am

You are sure quick to insult anyone who doesn’t worship Mann the way you do.
That seems to be the only intellectual skill you posses.

MarkW
Reply to  Krishna Gans
September 1, 2021 7:23 am

He seems to believe that whatever caused the world to warm out of the Little Ice Age, stopped 70 years ago and CO2 took over.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 7:59 pm

But it turned out that without aerosol forcing the signal disappears.”

Without stripbark trees, the signal disappears. Funny how that works, innit.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 12:30 pm

I have yet you to produce any science. Just declaring that a single paper based on an unproven model proves something may be a convincing argument for you. But for those who actually understand how science works, it doesn’t.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
August 31, 2021 2:12 pm

Just declaring that a single paper based on an unproven model proves something may be a convincing argument for you

A few corrections. This is a single peer reviewed paper from a heavyweight of the field in a topic he (and his coauthors) has been researching heavily. This is not a shitty blog entry you can just dismiss out of hand. It’s not Charles Rotten bullshiting in a blog. It’s not Ross McKitrick confusing radians and degrees.

But for those who actually understand how science works

If you really understood how science works you wouldn’t write about “unproven” model in a peer reviewed article.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 3:18 pm

The only things heavy about Mann, is his weight and his ego.
Peer review just means you get a few friends who agree with you to rubber stamp the paper. It’s not the gold standard that you wish it to be.

If the model is proven, prove it.

Warministas really get their panties tied into a knot whenever someone proves their religious beliefs are unfounded.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  nyolci
September 1, 2021 12:10 pm

This is a single peer reviewed paper from a heavyweight of the field in a topic he (and his coauthors) has been researching heavily.

Being a overweight ignorant and arrogant bloviator in a crowd of other bloviators who agree with your bloviation and help get it “published” doesn’t “prove” a damn thing, any more than being an average weight ignorant and arrogant bloviator in a crowd of other bloviators who agree with your bloviation and help get it “published” would.

A computer model doesn’t “prove” a damn thing. It does nothing but reflect your input assumptions. When those are all wrong, as are the ones used in most models having anything to do with what is laughingly called “climate science,” the output of the model is nothing more than glorified bullshit.

Mike
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 8:24 pm

FYI he (Mann) is not against cycles in general.”

He is completely paralyzed by them.

Mike
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 8:13 pm

 He has proven that the AMO is simply the result of aerosol forcing.”

Complete and utter garbage. No one has proven any such thing. You are an idiot.

Richard Page
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 5:19 am

“Mann, the original discover of AMO…” Absolute and utter bollocks. The atlantic oscillation has been ‘discovered’ and known about for a thousand years, original scientific research has been done on it since 1910 and Michael Mann wasn’t involved in any of it. He merely coined the phrase used in popular science a few years ago and it stuck, replacing the previous term used.

nyolci
Reply to  Richard Page
August 31, 2021 7:44 am

The atlantic oscillation has been ‘discovered’ and known about for a thousand years

This is beyond parody.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 8:14 am

That is how most warmistas react to reality.

Richard Page
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 9:02 am

No, nyolci, truth. That there are warm periods and cold periods in the Atlantic Ocean has been known about since the Vikings paddled about in it. But it’s only since about 1910-1911 that It’s been officially recognised, aka ‘discovered’ and it was only in 1920 that the associated North Atlantic Oscillation was discovered. And no, once again, Michael Mann was not involved. Does he have a bogus ‘AMO discoverer’ award alongside his bogus Nobel prize?

nyolci
Reply to  Richard Page
August 31, 2021 12:23 pm

That there are warm periods and cold periods in the Atlantic Ocean has been known about since the Vikings paddled about in it

Again, this is beyond parody.

Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 1:19 pm

The real parody that’s you, no one and nothing else.

Last edited 18 days ago by Krishna Gans
nyolci
Reply to  Krishna Gans
August 31, 2021 2:07 pm

The real parody that’s you, no one and nothing else.

Inshallah… er… Hare Krishna…

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 3:19 pm

Anyone else notice that time and time again, nyolci completely fails to actually defend the claims that he makes.
He just screams louder and louder about anyone who disagrees with him and his idols, is some kind of science denier and stupid to boot.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  nyolci
September 1, 2021 12:11 pm

YOU are beyond parody.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 5:34 am

Just how much stronger does the alleged 0.03C of warming make hurricanes?

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
August 31, 2021 7:49 am

Just how much stronger does the alleged 0.03C of warming make hurricanes

Hm, this short sentence of yours is wrong in so many ways…

  • It’s not 0.03C.
  • It’s not alleged.
  • You have readily accepted the AMO explanation. This is essentially a small, North Atlantic warming. In essence, you have accepted that a small amount of warming make hurricanes stronger. And now you’re asking me how much?
MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 8:16 am

Yes it is.
Since the sensors aren’t accurate to that level and we don’t have enough sensors anyway, it is alleged.

If you think that the AMO warms water and this causes hurricanes, then no wonder you are a warmista, your lack of knowledge is astounding.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
August 31, 2021 12:30 pm

Since the sensors aren’t accurate to that level and we don’t have enough sensors anyway, it is alleged.

Please go publish this result, this should shed a completely new light on the problems climate science is struggling with. You can easily revolutionize this field with your deep insight. Remember, this is currently a bold assertion in the comment section of an obscure, industry financed blog. The truth must come out!

If you think that the AMO warms water and this causes hurricanes

No, it’s not me. It’s NOAA, and you immediately accepted it (bold is mine):

During warm phases of the AMO, the numbers of tropical storms that mature into severe hurricanes is much greater than during cool phases, at least twice as many.

If you are stupid enough to misunderstand my words (“AMO warms water”), I have to tell you I was talking about the current phase. But knowing your deep insight into science, I think you’re perfectly capably of understanding relatively simple sentences.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 3:25 pm

The fact that you can’t get 0.03C of accuracy out of sensors with 0.2C resolution is not something that has to be proven. Only those who do climate science don’t know it.

Industry financed blog? Boy, your paranoia is running on over time. Got some evidence for that, or is it just another one of those thing that every waminista knows?

Nothing obscur about this blog either. But then again, your ego can’t handle the fact that more people gather here than at any of your prefered sources of climate propaganda.

If you weren’t so convinced of your intellectual superiority, you might be able to see how dumb you are.

To disprove my point about AMO’s not warming water, you bring forth a quote about AMO’s resulting in more hurricanes.

Your quote doesn’t even address my point, much less refute it.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
September 1, 2021 6:23 am

The fact that you can’t get 0.03C of accuracy out of sensors with 0.2C resolution is not something that has to be proven

Mark, Mark, we are again going to the “beyond parody” territory. You’re denying something that is routine in science and engineering (not just specifically climate science). bgtwhoever has given quite a few, extremely simple examples for reaching very high accuracy with ridiculously low resolution. The required mathematics is not straightforward but not extremely complicated either, FYI it’s taught during the first two years in college level STEM courses. The theory behind had been well developed before WWI. This is something well known and your denying only shows how extremely badly informed you are in STEM.

Industry financed blog?

Yes, it is. Even the fraction of conflict of interests this blog has would catapult any denier to the stratosphere with outrage if the shoe was on the other foot. The same applies to the whole of deniersphere. These interests have been mapped and public and well known. Your denying only shows how delusional you are in this.

Last edited 18 days ago by nyolci
Jim Gorman
Reply to  nyolci
September 1, 2021 7:24 am

Show us a cite for a university that absolves one from proper use of significant digit rules!

The mere fact that a calculator can spit out a 10 decimal place answer won’t suffice.

I’ll show you some that says differently.

https://www.inorganicventures.com/icp-guide/significant-figures-and-uncertainty

http://www.chemistry.wustl.edu/~coursedev/Online%20tutorials/SigFigs.htm

“By using significant figures, we can show how precise a number is. If we express a number beyond the place to which we have actually measured (and are therefore certain of), we compromise the integrity of what this number is representing. It is important after learning and understanding significant figures to use them properly throughout your scientific career.”

nyolci
Reply to  Jim Gorman
September 1, 2021 8:51 am

Jim, not again… You somehow completely unable to understand averaging. This is again beyond parody.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
September 1, 2021 10:45 am

Once again. Not even an attempt to support his position. Just random insults towards those who don’t accept his word as final.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  nyolci
September 2, 2021 8:06 am

NY — “You somehow completely unable to understand averaging.”

How laughable! Can you not read the links I gave you? Try refuting them instead of ad hominem attacks.

MarkW
Reply to  Jim Gorman
September 2, 2021 10:29 am

nyolci is a leftist. He already knows everything.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
September 1, 2021 7:29 am

It’s only routine in climate science. Real scientists know that you can only improve accuracy when three conditions are met.
1) You use the same instrument for every measurement.
2) You are measuring the same thing every time.
3) Your error has a random distribution.

None of these are true for the measurements of ocean currents.

Once again, nyolci can’t be bothered to prove any of his claims. He just expects us take his word for it that Anthony is funded by oil interests. Then to provide extra emphasis, to prove that he is right, he insults anyone who doesn’t agree.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
September 1, 2021 8:53 am

Mark, please tone down. You look more and more stupid. Eg. error is always a random distribution. The question is: which one. Please go to uni or whatever.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
September 1, 2021 10:47 am

Once again, nyolci goes way, way, out of it’s way to demonstrate that it knows nothing about science. Or anything else.
Error is sometimes randomly distributed, most of the time it isn’t.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  nyolci
September 1, 2021 12:20 pm

The only one who looks more and more stupid in this discussion is you.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  MarkW
September 1, 2021 12:15 pm

If you weren’t so convinced of your intellectual superiority, you might be able to see how dumb you are.

Good one.

I’m thinking a modified version of Carly Simon’s song would fit nyolci perfectly – “You’re so dumb, you probably can’t figure this song is about you.”

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  MarkW
August 31, 2021 1:45 pm

The nasty is strong with this one…

MarkW
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
August 31, 2021 3:27 pm

It’s how pseudo intellectuals always react when challenged.
Not being as smart as they believe themselves to be, they can’t engage intellectually, so their only recourse is to go nasty.

Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 8:20 am

You completely misinterpreted MarkWs question, because you have a lot of reading/understanding problems

nyolci
Reply to  Krishna Gans
August 31, 2021 12:30 pm

because you have a lot of reading/understanding problems

Thanks, appreciation at last.

Mike
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 8:41 pm

” This is essentially a small, North Atlantic warming”

The effects of this warm cycle are global, Hence we find T max in the 30s-40s in India, Antarctica, China, Australia, USA, Norway etc.
Oops, wrong again….
How does it feel to think you know everything only to find you actually know jack shit?

Last edited 18 days ago by Mike
beng135
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 10:00 am

Mann, the original discoverer of AMO is the one who has shown it doesn’t exist.

Wow, there’s low, and THEN there’s a Michael Mann sychophant….. Michael Mann is SO 2000s/Climategate/Idiotic statistical methods.

Last edited 19 days ago by beng135
AGW is Not Science
Reply to  beng135
September 1, 2021 12:22 pm

Michael Mann “discovered” the AMO just like Al Gore “discovered” the internet.

BrianB
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 1:16 pm

This research has already been covered by WUWT.

Indeed it has. Several times. It was systematically and compellingly dismantled as pretty much every one of Mann’s pseudo science projects is.
For instance, here by Muller Plath;
Internal Multidecadal and Interdecadal Climate Oscillations: Absence of Evidence Is No Evidence of Absence – Watts Up With That?

Here by Willis;
Learning About The AMO – Watts Up With That?

And here by Curry;
Canceling the AMO – Watts Up With That?

He has a layman level introduction to the topic:

Almost undoubtedly, primarily because he seems to have a layman’s level understanding of everything he publishes about. He does couch it in his pseudo scientific jargon which seems to convince people like you. But it is junk science. Period. The criticisms are cogent, well reasoned and concise, none of which Mann’s work ever is. There may be some competent scientists among the CAGW crowd. Mann is not one of them.

nyolci
Reply to  BrianB
August 31, 2021 2:06 pm

It was systematically and compellingly dismantled as pretty much every one of Mann’s pseudo science projects is.

Well, “dismantled” here means the usual bullshiting. As I remember Mann actually addressed the first one in the layman level introduction.

primarily because he seems to have a layman’s level understanding of everything he publishes about

No, no, no. Layman here means “for laymen”. He had laymen in his mind as the intended audience when he wrote this introduction. But I have to warn you, his introduction is for laymen. If you are bellow layman level your brain will hurt. As always 🙂

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 3:31 pm

Once again, nyolci’s response, as always is that Mann is correct, because he says he’s correct.

Mike
Reply to  nyolci
August 31, 2021 8:51 pm

As I remember Mann actually addressed the first one in the layman level introduction.”

Ah yes, the great ”addresser.” Just as he did when he came down here to Aust and addressed us that we had a choice between a stable climate and a fiery hell on Earth. Yes a most insightful and man with the highest integrity.
Idiot.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  nyolci
September 1, 2021 12:24 pm

“The usual bullshitting” = anything Mann “publishes,” or says, or writes, pretty much.

DocSiders
August 31, 2021 4:14 am

Ward isn’t showing incompetence…he’s lying like the rest of them “for the cause”. Truth takes a back seat.

philincalifornia
Reply to  DocSiders
August 31, 2021 8:35 am

With “the cause” being their bank accounts.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  DocSiders
September 1, 2021 12:25 pm

I can’t rule out “C. All of the above.”

Chris Weaver
August 31, 2021 4:29 am

I failed to see on the NOAA page what A, M, O stands for?

Reply to  Chris Weaver
August 31, 2021 8:22 am

Atlantic Mulidecadal Oscillation

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Krishna Gans
August 31, 2021 9:33 am

Or Atlantic Meridional Overturning?

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
August 31, 2021 12:10 pm

Certainely not.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
August 31, 2021 1:24 pm

Talk you about AMOC ?
Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation ?

Last edited 18 days ago by Krishna Gans
Duane
August 31, 2021 4:34 am

It’s silly to even discuss such a short period of record of four decades, or even since storms began naming in the 1950s. We have pretty good storm records for Atlantic cyclones going back at least to Colombus’s voyages at the end of the 15th century, in terms of damage inflicted, and barometric pressure records from ships at sea. That’s five centuries plus.

Blaming Ida on warming – which is what all the warmunistas are doing in their typical kneejerk fashion – is just plain not supported by any decent data analysis. They keep using the phrase “strongest hurricane ever recorded in Louisiana, but that is far too little of a dataset – a single state comprising less than 5% of the US Atlantic coastline.

In any event, the best measure of a tropical cyclone’s intensity is minimum recorded barometric pressure. Ida only measured 930 mb at its strongest just as it made landfall. That would not even put it in the top 30 hurricanes for the last half century. Cat 4 storms happen every year, as do Cat 5 storms. The only question is where such storms go, and how many we have, as to their effect on humanity and the environment.

fretslider
Reply to  Duane
August 31, 2021 5:19 am

Blaming Ida on warming – which is what all the warmunistas are doing

Funnily enough, that’s exactly what I expected from the BBC etc only it never came. They’ve devoted all their attention to emotionally harrasing the people over Afghanistan.

Ida was clearly run of the mill as hurricanes go.

Last edited 19 days ago by fretslider
Drake
Reply to  fretslider
August 31, 2021 9:37 am

Not really, but they can’t push how BIG it was without discussing how WELL the George W. Bush levees worked.

Have you heard ANYONE mention Bush and levees? Have you heard anything about who got the levees built properly by circumventing local political influences. Before Katrina the Democrats in LA, governor, etc. made sure their cronies’ boat harbors got plenty of the federal levee money.

August 31, 2021 4:53 am

Ignoring the 60-80 year AMO cycle allows the AGW fraudsters to cherry-pick the start period of the comparison in order to further their fraud and AGW artifice.

Scissor
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
August 31, 2021 5:20 am

Yeah, they start various records at different dates for the purpose of cherry-picking and narrative building.They are consistently deceptive.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Scissor
August 31, 2021 10:08 am

You see that trick being played repeatedly in the UN IPCC CliSciFi AR6. Lies, damned lies and statistics.

fretslider
August 31, 2021 5:00 am

To be a serious ‘scientist’ you need a few monikers after your name: 

“Member of the Advisory Group to the High-Level Leadership Forum on Carbon Pricing and Competitiveness. Deputy Chair of the London Climate Change Partnership. Policy and Communications Director for the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy

A fellow of the Geological Society, a fellow of the Royal Geographical Society, a fellow of the Energy Institute and a member of the American Geophysical Union. He is also a member of the board of the Association of British Science Writers and a member of the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Public Relations Association”.

Impressive eh, for a know nothing. Well, to be fair, he does know how to play the [faithful] attack dog.

Now we all know about Auntie and her firm conviction that the science on climate is settled – don’t we? I’m sure we do.

Director of policy at the LSE Grantham Institute, Bob Ward, said: “The BBC has a problem. It is an organisation dominated by people who don’t have a science background and think that everything is a matter of opinion. The laws of physics are not a matter of opinion…

“The case of Nigel Lawson being on against Brian Hoskins was a prime example. He spent most of the interview disagreeing about the science, he was offering a counter opinion about the science of climate change. The interviewer did nothing to intervene to try to establish who was telling the truth.

https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/bbc-news-sticking-two-fingers-management-says-prof-behind-2011-report-science-coverage-impartiality

I think that was the last time they had Lawson on.

As Jeremy Grantham might say: good dog, Bob.

Last edited 19 days ago by fretslider
Sara
August 31, 2021 5:20 am

What do you mean by “IF”???

Sorry, but I almost fell off my chair, laughing at that statement “if Bob Ward does not know this”.

He doesn’t WANT to know it, because it conflicts with his personal belief system. And he may not have noticed that Ida began to stutter and slowly reduce force when the eye made landfall. Now she’s just a Tropical Depression, somewhere in northern Alabama.

And the weather up here in my kingdom has cooled off delightfully just about the time Ida made landfall. I know – it’s a coincidence, but cooler nights are nice.

PaulH
August 31, 2021 5:55 am

If the clown Bob Ward does not know this, he is incompetent.

I see no need to insult clowns.

Ronald Stein
August 31, 2021 6:13 am

Can climate change be the cause on absolutely no hurricanes hitting Florida from 2005 to 2017!

 

Anthony Banton
August 31, 2021 7:04 am

Ida came up through the Gulf of Mexico, did it not?
comment image?w=632

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Anthony Banton
August 31, 2021 7:18 am

Also:

“Departure of SST from average (in degrees F) for the tropical Atlantic’s main development region for hurricanes, from the coast of Africa to the Caribbean, between 10-20°N. SSTs have risen by about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1°C) over the past 100 years, and by about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6°C) over the past 50 years. (Image credit: Climate Central; manually updated up to 2020 using NOAA/NCEI data)”
comment image?w=974&ssl=1

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/05/why-are-there-so-many-atlantic-named-storms-five-possible-explanations/

fretslider
Reply to  Anthony Banton
August 31, 2021 7:33 am

“The number of Atlantic named storms has unquestionably been on the rise in recent decades”.

And now meet light breeze Brian.

It might even dry your laundry,

Last edited 19 days ago by fretslider
Editor
Reply to  Anthony Banton
August 31, 2021 8:11 am

Gee, the waters of the Gulf is already warm enough in 1910 to support Hurricane development.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Anthony Banton
August 31, 2021 8:43 am

That’s such a nice figure of the baseline – it’s a keeper. Show’s by eyeballing even that CO2 levels above 280ppm have had no measurable effect on temperature. After half a doubling arithmetically and, at 396ppm, logarithmically, climate sensitivity to CO2 continues to be indistinguishable from zero.

philincalifornia
Reply to  philincalifornia
August 31, 2021 9:43 am
Richard M
Reply to  Anthony Banton
August 31, 2021 5:09 pm

The Atlantic Ocean basin has been warming for around 400 years. What caused the first 300 years of warming?

MarkW
Reply to  Richard M
September 1, 2021 7:31 am

Teleconnections work across time as well as space.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Anthony Banton
September 1, 2021 12:41 pm

There are so many Atlantic “named storms” because they name a lot more storms than they used to, and have observations of many more “storms” to “name” given satellite observation in recent years vs. “did a ship cross its path.”

One needs no further “explanations.”

Reply to  Anthony Banton
August 31, 2021 9:28 am

You have to ask from that graph, “Why the LIA occurred?” Is not that simply depicting the secular warming from LIA? And a clear 70-ish year sinusoid is imposed on that.

John H
August 31, 2021 7:35 am

Bob Ward is not incompetent, he will be fully aware of the AMO but prefers lying to telling the truth.

philincalifornia
Reply to  John H
August 31, 2021 8:58 am

Does he actually do anything about getting carbon dioxide levels down or is it just theft of money from taxpayers and general parasitization of his fellow humans?

I suppose he can justify to himself that telling people to tell other people to pretend they’re going to be driving EVs by 2050 justifies his looting of humanity,

Dave Fair
Reply to  philincalifornia
August 31, 2021 10:13 am

How are those EVs doing in New Orleans right now?

old engineer
Reply to  Dave Fair
August 31, 2021 6:20 pm

All 600 of them?

“Nov 26, 2019 — Of the 1,400 electric vehicles registered in the state of Louisiana this year, more than 600 are registered in the New Orleans metro area …”

From: https://nola.gov/mayor/news/november-2019/city-awarded-$80k-by-louisiana-department-of-environmental-quality-to-install-electric-vehicle-charg/

Of course if all 600 were able to feed their charge back to the house they were charging from (I don’t think this tech exists yet), in few hours we would have 600 more houses without power and 600 cars that can’t go anywhere. And according to news reports maybe for days.

Last edited 18 days ago by old engineer
AGW is Not Science
Reply to  John H
September 1, 2021 12:44 pm

Still unable to rule out “C. All of the above.”

beng135
August 31, 2021 8:21 am

My question is, who in the heck is Bob Ward and who gives a flying frack about him?

philincalifornia
Reply to  beng135
August 31, 2021 1:16 pm

He was the drummer in Black Sabbath. Oh, hold on a sec, that was Bill who actually did something useful.

Killer Marmot
August 31, 2021 8:23 am

As a matter of journalistic style, you may wish to define “AMO” (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation) somewhere in the article, and preferably at the beginning, preferably with a short blurb of what it means.

Ouluman
August 31, 2021 8:53 am

Anybody looked at relationship between MJO phase and majors? According to weatherbell there is strong correlation for these to happen in phase 1,2,3.

ResourceGuy
August 31, 2021 9:01 am

What we need is a data update on a cycle turning point. Remember cycles? They still exist even if banned in the climate religion dark ages. What we need is a Copernicus of Cycles.

NOAA SST-NorthAtlantic GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979 With37monthRunningAverage.gif (880×481) (wp.com)

Not detrended is best with the relative lack of turning points in the series to do otherwise with statistical confidence
AMO GlobalAnnualIndexSince1856 With11yearRunningAverage.gif (880×471) (wp.com)

ResourceGuy
August 31, 2021 11:19 am

The Great Climate Con is predicated on climate ignorance throughout the process from Solyndra to the AOC Presidency. Don’t live long and don’t prosper.

AndyHce
August 31, 2021 11:23 am

Bob Ward? A clown in what circus?

Reply to  AndyHce
August 31, 2021 12:11 pm

Climate Circus, what else 😀 ?

Last edited 18 days ago by Krishna Gans
philincalifornia
Reply to  AndyHce
August 31, 2021 1:18 pm

The Tree Ring Circus.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  philincalifornia
August 31, 2021 10:11 pm

Hahahahahahaha

Can I use that ???

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
September 1, 2021 12:48 pm

As the perfect moniker for “climate science?”

%d bloggers like this: