Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 1

[orogenicman]

ABSOLUTELY NO MISTAKE.. Those morons FORGED the PMOD data.

I understand that Solanki data goes to 1978.. And the PMOD data goes from 1979..

THAT IS NOT THE PMOD DATA --- Got it? There is no "SAGGY DICK" feature in the PMOD data around 2008..

Actually, the PMOD data DOES show a drop in the 2008 time frame:

Here is their site:

welcome to pmodwrc

In fact, from 1978 to the present, the slope of the graph represents an overall drop in TSI. The fact that the TSI does not indicate that solar activity is the cause of global warming is also verified independently here:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1107204235.htm

There is no cyclical trend shown in POS FRAUD. if u removed the cyclical.. it would be a gentle minor down slope.. NOT A GIANT LIMP DICK.

Dude, in the Skepticalscience.com graph, the x-axis ranges from 1880 to 2009. The PMOD ranges from 1978 to 2012. To expect such short term cycles to show up in a much longer-term graph is, how shall I put this nicely - stoooopid. Ever hear of scaling? At any rate, both show a downward trend in TSI. The skepticascience.com graph compares that downward trend to global temperatures, and when that it done, it is clear that there is a significant divergence from 1980 to the present. Which corroborates the more recent work I posted at this link:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1107204235.htm

A link which you are still conveniently ignoring.

 

[westwall]

Law enforcement has given up on finding the perpetrators because trying to track hackers on a tight law enforcement budget is virtually impossible. What is clear from the timeline of events is that minutes to hours after the hacking occurred, the files showed up on a Russian server, and then some hours later, on denier web sites. Do you deny this?

What do you believe the significance of that factoid is ?? Who else were they gonna give them to? The frickin FBI??? The IPCC ??? Maybe Drudge or WikiLeaks???

Probably a LOT of disgruntled RUSSIAN scientists that aren't sitting at the "popular kids table" when it comes to having papers included.

You miss the point. The point is that they broke the law, and those who supported their actions behaved unethically (and have yet to condemn such behavior) all for the purpose of undermining an international agreement on global warming instead of doing what everyone else was doing, which was discussing the facts. But now I see YOU are speculating instead of discussing the facts. Gee, I wonder where you got that idea?

I find it amusing that you laud Gleick for his felonious attack on the Heartland Institute because you despise them but want to torture the person who released the CLIMATEGATE emails which were demonstrating clear evidence of data falsification and fraud.

And for the record it is almost certain that it was an inside IT person who released the emails.

 

[westwall]

If I didn't respond it is because I didn't see the question asked. The source is on the description of the figure (Figure 1: Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, 1979 to 2009 from PMOD).

Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions



Consider yourself proven wrong.

Nope not at all --- As I suspected your passing disease and crap along from your trips there.. I edited the post above... You missed it..

Figure 2: Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, 1979 to 2009 from PMOD), with 11-year running averages.



Solanki --- OK, but not the most used version of proxy data.. But HEY OREOMAN --- THAT AINT THE PMOD DATA in that piece of shit...
When you gonna wise up and stay out of the gutter??????

See for yourself how contaminated you are.. I lost the link to PBear's post on page 12 or 13 with the PMOD data. But you can find it.. Better FIND IT --- you need an antidote for this before it becomes an epidemic around here.

You are confused. Solanki's data is not from PMOD. His data is right here:

http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/data/tsi_1611.txt

1880 to 1978 is from Solanki, above, while 1979 to 2009 is from PMOD.

Have you read this yet?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1107204235.htm

Your science daily is a dead link...

 

[westwall]

Actually, the PMOD data DOES show a drop in the 2008 time frame:

Here is their site:

welcome to pmodwrc

In fact, from 1978 to the present, the slope of the graph represents an overall drop in TSI. The fact that the TSI does not indicate that solar activity is the cause of global warming is also verified independently here:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1107204235.htm

There is no cyclical trend shown in POS FRAUD. if u removed the cyclical.. it would be a gentle minor down slope.. NOT A GIANT LIMP DICK.

Dude, in the Skepticalscience.com graph, the x-axis ranges from 1880 to 2009. The PMOD ranges from 1978 to 2012. To expect such short term cycles to show up in a much longer-term graph is, how shall I put this nicely - stoooopid. Ever hear of scaling? At any rate, both show a downward trend in TSI. The skepticascience.com graph compares that downward trend to global temperatures, and when that it done, it is clear that there is a significant divergence from 1980 to the present. Which corroborates the more recent work I posted at this link:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1107204235.htm

A link which you are still conveniently ignoring.

And which is still very dead....

 

[orogenicman]

What do you believe the significance of that factoid is ?? Who else were they gonna give them to? The frickin FBI??? The IPCC ??? Maybe Drudge or WikiLeaks???

Probably a LOT of disgruntled RUSSIAN scientists that aren't sitting at the "popular kids table" when it comes to having papers included.

You miss the point. The point is that they broke the law, and those who supported their actions behaved unethically (and have yet to condemn such behavior) all for the purpose of undermining an international agreement on global warming instead of doing what everyone else was doing, which was discussing the facts. But now I see YOU are speculating instead of discussing the facts. Gee, I wonder where you got that idea?

I find it amusing that you laud Gleick for his felonious attack on the Heartland Institute because you despise them but want to torture the person who released the CLIMATEGATE emails which were demonstrating clear evidence of data falsification and fraud.

And for the record it is almost certain that it was an inside IT person who released the emails.

Since I have posted no comment on Gleick, you are clutching at straws. If you are certain that it was an inside IT person who broke the law in the e-gate case (and interesting accusation since the police cleared all of the university staff of any wrongdoing as has the university), perhaps you can give us this person's name.

 

[orogenicman]

There is no cyclical trend shown in POS FRAUD. if u removed the cyclical.. it would be a gentle minor down slope.. NOT A GIANT LIMP DICK.

Dude, in the Skepticalscience.com graph, the x-axis ranges from 1880 to 2009. The PMOD ranges from 1978 to 2012. To expect such short term cycles to show up in a much longer-term graph is, how shall I put this nicely - stoooopid. Ever hear of scaling? At any rate, both show a downward trend in TSI. The skepticascience.com graph compares that downward trend to global temperatures, and when that it done, it is clear that there is a significant divergence from 1980 to the present. Which corroborates the more recent work I posted at this link:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1107204235.htm

A link which you are still conveniently ignoring.

And which is still very dead....

Try this one. It is not dead.
Solar activity playing a minimal role in global warming, research suggests

 

[polarbear]

Actually, the PMOD data DOES show a drop in the 2008 time frame:

Here is their site:

welcome to pmodwrc

In fact, from 1978 to the present, the slope of the graph represents an overall drop in TSI. The fact that the TSI does not indicate that solar activity is the cause of global warming is also verified independently here:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1107204235.htm

There is no cyclical trend shown in POS FRAUD. if u removed the cyclical.. it would be a gentle minor down slope.. NOT A GIANT LIMP DICK.

Dude, in the Skepticalscience.com graph, the x-axis ranges from 1880 to 2009. The PMOD ranges from 1978 to 2012. To expect such short term cycles to show up in a much longer-term graph is, how shall I put this nicely - stoooopid. Ever hear of scaling? At any rate, both show a downward trend in TSI. The skepticascience.com graph compares that downward trend to global temperatures, and when that it done, it is clear that there is a significant divergence from 1980 to the present. Which corroborates the more recent work I posted at this link:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1107204235.htm

A link which you are still conveniently ignoring.

First of all that link is dead, but it`s not a problem to find the crap on yet another one of your crap "science" mouth pieces where they discuss galactic rays, not solar irradiance.
Solar activity playing a minimal role in global warming, research suggests
It starts out with great fanfare (as usual)

Solar Activity Playing a Minimal Role in Global Warming, Research Suggests

But in reality never addresses solar irradiance on climate. It only examines some nuthead idea how galactic rays may or may not influence cloud formation. Both hypothesis have been "proven" yet again with a "computer model".
So why did you even bring that one up?
What`s that got to do with the effect of solar irradiance?
Are you that stupid or simply cant` understand the difference and all you were looking for with Google was any article other than "skepticalscience" that had the words "solar activity" + "minimum role" -"skepticalscince.com"
...and pounced on the first thing that came up.
Then you were too eager to boast the link, without even reading the article...and even screwed up that part as well.
None of that surprises me after you pointed to a single solar irradiance low at 2008 of where they switched to a VIRGO maximum low of about 1365.75 [watts /m^2] and try pass that off as some sort of "scientific proof" to de-couple solar irradiance from temperature.
Let me get this straight.
Idiots like you advocate that
1.) CO2 "leads temperature"
2.) That it may take years of delay before the CO2 "feedback" manifests itself as a new temperature equilibrium
3.) That not even 15 years of stalled temperature increase is a "trend"
4.) All of you 3 idots in this forum accept no less than a 150 year time period
But when it comes to solar irradiation one data point + or - 1 year is enough for you to "rule out" any "trend" other than CO2.
In the process you never even noticed how the IPCC has been pulling the wool over your head.
They keep plugging a "solar constant" into their CO2 myth models which is lower than the average as an "average" of what it shows on the stuff you keep posting.
No matter how often I point that out you keep missing the entire boat.
So I guess it`s no use to try and educate you with some basics about heat conduction, equilibrium state etc unless they are simple enough for dummies like you. Maybe this will help you to come to grips with what happens when you apply heat to an object.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4tt5wQr-Po"]Thermal Conductivity - YouTube[/ame]

See the time delay?...and these are different metal rods, small mass and being heated with a blowtorch.
What makes you think that an entire "average global temperature" should instantly respond, lock-step in time to what the sun is doing at any given time ?...and according to you "failed to do so".
Really? How would you know ?
In the same thread you and the other resident idiots kept claiming that heat is there alive and well...down in the depths of our oceans and posted a whole bunch of graphs where the "missing heat" can be found.
Keep posting...so far you, "PMZ" etc have been doing about as well as a toad trying to cross the freeway during rush hour

 

[flacaltenn]

Actually, the PMOD data DOES show a drop in the 2008 time frame:

Here is their site:

welcome to pmodwrc

In fact, from 1978 to the present, the slope of the graph represents an overall drop in TSI. The fact that the TSI does not indicate that solar activity is the cause of global warming is also verified independently here:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1107204235.htm

There is no cyclical trend shown in POS FRAUD. if u removed the cyclical.. it would be a gentle minor down slope.. NOT A GIANT LIMP DICK.

Dude, in the Skepticalscience.com graph, the x-axis ranges from 1880 to 2009. The PMOD ranges from 1978 to 2012. To expect such short term cycles to show up in a much longer-term graph is, how shall I put this nicely - stoooopid. Ever hear of scaling? At any rate, both show a downward trend in TSI. The skepticascience.com graph compares that downward trend to global temperatures, and when that it done, it is clear that there is a significant divergence from 1980 to the present. Which corroborates the more recent work I posted at this link:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1107204235.htm

A link which you are still conveniently ignoring.

DUDE ... I'm ignoring your side-step because that skepticalscience needs to be stopped...

Your theory about "scaling" is an argument -- but weak.. I could show a couple 11 year cycles on that scale if I wanted to.. The answer is --- they wanted an opportunity to MANIPULATE AND FUDGE the data so as you can see in their "plot" -- they chose to run an 11 yr AVERAGE over the data to REMOVE those cycles. And in doing so -- they also introduced changes in the RATE of decline and exaggerated the "limp dick" at the end.

You could take that PMOD data and run a linear fit thru it (with an 11 yr filter if you wanted) and there would be VIRTUALLY NO 1st or 2nd derivatives of slope in that plot. Meaning that the fitted line WOULD BE DAMN NEAR LINEAR...

But what we get in their manipulation is a plot showing very high ACCELERATIONS and higher derivatives that NEVER EXISTED in the pmod data.

I can almost tell you what they did.. If you zero fill the PMOD data to the right side and run the 11 yr filter over it --- the "droop" at the end would be the expected artifact. I've done this BY ACCIDENT many times. THIS ----- was done on purpose. ((because of the length of the filter, if you don't fill the ends with SOMETHING --- you lose years off the output at both ends))

Compare the 2 in the same post. Incompetence or devious mischief? I don't care....

 

[PMZ]

There is no cyclical trend shown in POS FRAUD. if u removed the cyclical.. it would be a gentle minor down slope.. NOT A GIANT LIMP DICK.

Dude, in the Skepticalscience.com graph, the x-axis ranges from 1880 to 2009. The PMOD ranges from 1978 to 2012. To expect such short term cycles to show up in a much longer-term graph is, how shall I put this nicely - stoooopid. Ever hear of scaling? At any rate, both show a downward trend in TSI. The skepticascience.com graph compares that downward trend to global temperatures, and when that it done, it is clear that there is a significant divergence from 1980 to the present. Which corroborates the more recent work I posted at this link:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1107204235.htm

A link which you are still conveniently ignoring.

First of all that link is dead, but it`s not a problem to find the crap on yet another one of your crap "science" mouth pieces where they discuss galactic rays, not solar irradiance.
Solar activity playing a minimal role in global warming, research suggests
It starts out with great fanfare (as usual)

Solar Activity Playing a Minimal Role in Global Warming, Research Suggests

But in reality never addresses solar irradiance on climate. It only examines some nuthead idea how galactic rays may or may not influence cloud formation. Both hypothesis have been "proven" yet again with a "computer model".
So why did you even bring that one up?
What`s that got to do with the effect of solar irradiance?
Are you that stupid or simply cant` understand the difference and all you were looking for with Google was any article other than "skepticalscience" that had the words "solar activity" + "minimum role" -"skepticalscince.com"
...and pounced on the first thing that came up.
Then you were too eager to boast the link, without even reading the article...and even screwed up that part as well.
None of that surprises me after you pointed to a single solar irradiance low at 2008 of where they switched to a VIRGO maximum low of about 1365.75 [watts /m^2] and try pass that off as some sort of "scientific proof" to de-couple solar irradiance from temperature.
Let me get this straight.
Idiots like you advocate that
1.) CO2 "leads temperature"
2.) That it may take years of delay before the CO2 "feedback" manifests itself as a new temperature equilibrium
3.) That not even 15 years of stalled temperature increase is a "trend"
4.) All of you 3 idots in this forum accept no less than a 150 year time period
But when it comes to solar irradiation one data point + or - 1 year is enough for you to "rule out" any "trend" other than CO2.
In the process you never even noticed how the IPCC has been pulling the wool over your head.
They keep plugging a "solar constant" into their CO2 myth models which is lower than the average as an "average" of what it shows on the stuff you keep posting.
No matter how often I point that out you keep missing the entire boat.
So I guess it`s no use to try and educate you with some basics about heat conduction, equilibrium state etc unless they are simple enough for dummies like you. Maybe this will help you to come to grips with what happens when you apply heat to an object.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4tt5wQr-Po"]Thermal Conductivity - YouTube[/ame]

See the time delay?...and these are different metal rods, small mass and being heated with a blowtorch.
What makes you think that an entire "average global temperature" should instantly respond, lock-step in time to what the sun is doing at any given time ?...and according to you "failed to do so".
Really? How would you know ?
In the same thread you and the other resident idiots kept claiming that heat is there alive and well...down in the depths of our oceans and posted a whole bunch of graphs where the "missing heat" can be found.
Keep posting...so far you, "PMZ" etc have been doing about as well as a toad trying to cross the freeway during rush hour

Why do you make something so simple, complicated?

GHG are the only thing that we can control that is indisputably changing.

Higher atmospheric GHG concentrations effectively reduce OLR.

The solar energy coming in, that's in excess of the decreasing every day OLR has no way out and must increase long term average temperature somehow and at some time to restore energy balance.

There is no science or theory that refutes that process or suggests any different possibility.

All of the red herrings in play by denialists are irrelevant.

 

[flacaltenn]

There is no cyclical trend shown in POS FRAUD. if u removed the cyclical.. it would be a gentle minor down slope.. NOT A GIANT LIMP DICK.

Dude, in the Skepticalscience.com graph, the x-axis ranges from 1880 to 2009. The PMOD ranges from 1978 to 2012. To expect such short term cycles to show up in a much longer-term graph is, how shall I put this nicely - stoooopid. Ever hear of scaling? At any rate, both show a downward trend in TSI. The skepticascience.com graph compares that downward trend to global temperatures, and when that it done, it is clear that there is a significant divergence from 1980 to the present. Which corroborates the more recent work I posted at this link:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1107204235.htm

A link which you are still conveniently ignoring.

First of all that link is dead, but it`s not a problem to find the crap on yet another one of your crap "science" mouth pieces where they discuss galactic rays, not solar irradiance.
Solar activity playing a minimal role in global warming, research suggests
It starts out with great fanfare (as usual)

Solar Activity Playing a Minimal Role in Global Warming, Research Suggests

But in reality never addresses solar irradiance on climate. It only examines some nuthead idea how galactic rays may or may not influence cloud formation. Both hypothesis have been "proven" yet again with a "computer model".
So why did you even bring that one up?
What`s that got to do with the effect of solar irradiance?
Are you that stupid or simply cant` understand the difference and all you were looking for with Google was any article other than "skepticalscience" that had the words "solar activity" + "minimum role" -"skepticalscince.com"
...and pounced on the first thing that came up.
Then you were too eager to boast the link, without even reading the article...and even screwed up that part as well.
None of that surprises me after you pointed to a single solar irradiance low at 2008 of where they switched to a VIRGO maximum low of about 1365.75 [watts /m^2] and try pass that off as some sort of "scientific proof" to de-couple solar irradiance from temperature.
Let me get this straight.
Idiots like you advocate that
1.) CO2 "leads temperature"
2.) That it may take years of delay before the CO2 "feedback" manifests itself as a new temperature equilibrium
3.) That not even 15 years of stalled temperature increase is a "trend"
4.) All of you 3 idots in this forum accept no less than a 150 year time period
But when it comes to solar irradiation one data point + or - 1 year is enough for you to "rule out" any "trend" other than CO2.
In the process you never even noticed how the IPCC has been pulling the wool over your head.
They keep plugging a "solar constant" into their CO2 myth models which is lower than the average as an "average" of what it shows on the stuff you keep posting.
No matter how often I point that out you keep missing the entire boat.
So I guess it`s no use to try and educate you with some basics about heat conduction, equilibrium state etc unless they are simple enough for dummies like you. Maybe this will help you to come to grips with what happens when you apply heat to an object.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4tt5wQr-Po"]Thermal Conductivity - YouTube[/ame]

See the time delay?...and these are different metal rods, small mass and being heated with a blowtorch.
What makes you think that an entire "average global temperature" should instantly respond, lock-step in time to what the sun is doing at any given time ?...and according to you "failed to do so".
Really? How would you know ?
In the same thread you and the other resident idiots kept claiming that heat is there alive and well...down in the depths of our oceans and posted a whole bunch of graphs where the "missing heat" can be found.
Keep posting...so far you, "PMZ" etc have been doing about as well as a toad trying to cross the freeway during rush hour

Never will get an answer to why the Climate needs to INSTANTANEOUSLY respond to a new energy balance.. OR --- why that RESPONSE needs to look just like the input. The PR campaign for AGW has "framed the optics" as they say in politics.. And there's not 1% of the population who understand complex systems.

So my question to you Mr. Bear is -- if we both believe the Climate is that much more complicated --- why did you POUNCE on that Judith Curry work (the "stadium wave" paper) that ATTEMPTS to DEFINE all those complex thermal flows, time delays and storage mechanisms? There ARE some Climate scientists working on how the ACTUAL climate(s) really operate. Those are ones I support.

 

[Abraham3]

So the atmosphere is made up of metals?

 

[PMZ]

Dude, in the Skepticalscience.com graph, the x-axis ranges from 1880 to 2009. The PMOD ranges from 1978 to 2012. To expect such short term cycles to show up in a much longer-term graph is, how shall I put this nicely - stoooopid. Ever hear of scaling? At any rate, both show a downward trend in TSI. The skepticascience.com graph compares that downward trend to global temperatures, and when that it done, it is clear that there is a significant divergence from 1980 to the present. Which corroborates the more recent work I posted at this link:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1107204235.htm

A link which you are still conveniently ignoring.

First of all that link is dead, but it`s not a problem to find the crap on yet another one of your crap "science" mouth pieces where they discuss galactic rays, not solar irradiance.
Solar activity playing a minimal role in global warming, research suggests
It starts out with great fanfare (as usual)

Solar Activity Playing a Minimal Role in Global Warming, Research Suggests

But in reality never addresses solar irradiance on climate. It only examines some nuthead idea how galactic rays may or may not influence cloud formation. Both hypothesis have been "proven" yet again with a "computer model".
So why did you even bring that one up?
What`s that got to do with the effect of solar irradiance?
Are you that stupid or simply cant` understand the difference and all you were looking for with Google was any article other than "skepticalscience" that had the words "solar activity" + "minimum role" -"skepticalscince.com"
...and pounced on the first thing that came up.
Then you were too eager to boast the link, without even reading the article...and even screwed up that part as well.
None of that surprises me after you pointed to a single solar irradiance low at 2008 of where they switched to a VIRGO maximum low of about 1365.75 [watts /m^2] and try pass that off as some sort of "scientific proof" to de-couple solar irradiance from temperature.
Let me get this straight.
Idiots like you advocate that
1.) CO2 "leads temperature"
2.) That it may take years of delay before the CO2 "feedback" manifests itself as a new temperature equilibrium
3.) That not even 15 years of stalled temperature increase is a "trend"
4.) All of you 3 idots in this forum accept no less than a 150 year time period
But when it comes to solar irradiation one data point + or - 1 year is enough for you to "rule out" any "trend" other than CO2.
In the process you never even noticed how the IPCC has been pulling the wool over your head.
They keep plugging a "solar constant" into their CO2 myth models which is lower than the average as an "average" of what it shows on the stuff you keep posting.
No matter how often I point that out you keep missing the entire boat.
So I guess it`s no use to try and educate you with some basics about heat conduction, equilibrium state etc unless they are simple enough for dummies like you. Maybe this will help you to come to grips with what happens when you apply heat to an object.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4tt5wQr-Po"]Thermal Conductivity - YouTube[/ame]

See the time delay?...and these are different metal rods, small mass and being heated with a blowtorch.
What makes you think that an entire "average global temperature" should instantly respond, lock-step in time to what the sun is doing at any given time ?...and according to you "failed to do so".
Really? How would you know ?
In the same thread you and the other resident idiots kept claiming that heat is there alive and well...down in the depths of our oceans and posted a whole bunch of graphs where the "missing heat" can be found.
Keep posting...so far you, "PMZ" etc have been doing about as well as a toad trying to cross the freeway during rush hour

Never will get an answer to why the Climate needs to INSTANTANEOUSLY respond to a new energy balance.. OR --- why that RESPONSE needs to look just like the input. The PR campaign for AGW has "framed the optics" as they say in politics.. And there's not 1% of the population who understand complex systems.

So my question to you Mr. Bear is -- if we both believe the Climate is that much more complicated --- why did you POUNCE on that Judith Curry work (the "stadium wave" paper) that ATTEMPTS to DEFINE all those complex thermal flows, time delays and storage mechanisms? There ARE some Climate scientists working on how the ACTUAL climate(s) really operate. Those are ones I support.

Life on earth takes place immersed in air or water. As it has evolved, most life forms have developed means to sense the energy in their fluid environment. Temperature, flow, sound, light, pressure, humidity.

For life immersed in air, what we sense along those lines, humans call weather. Constantly changing weather.

We have invented a useful abstraction called climate. That is a measure of the long term temporal and large area spatial average of weather.

The impact of higher concentrations of atmospheric GHGs on climate is easy to state. Climactic temperatures must rise due to effectively restricted energy outflow compared to inflow, until energy balance is restored. Simple physics.

The translation of that, however, to the weather that we sense, is extremely complex. There are so many media that can exchange and contain that excess energy that even the most powerful computers today choke on simplified models of it.

The Judith Currey stadium wave paper referenced earlier is one attempt to infer the weather effects of AGW. That is the timing and magnitudes of weather changes that eventually lead to the one thing that can actually restore energy balance, higher surface temperatures.

Is that model close enough to reality to be useful? I imagine it will take a couple of years of peer review before it might gain enough credibility. It will have to compete with other approaches.

But, it's certainly progress.

 

[polarbear]

Never will get an answer to why the Climate needs to INSTANTANEOUSLY respond to a new energy balance.. OR --- why that RESPONSE needs to look just like the input. The PR campaign for AGW has "framed the optics" as they say in politics.. And there's not 1% of the population who understand complex systems.

So my question to you Mr. Bear is -- if we both believe the Climate is that much more complicated --- why did you POUNCE on that Judith Curry work (the "stadium wave" paper) that ATTEMPTS to DEFINE all those complex thermal flows, time delays and storage mechanisms? There ARE some Climate scientists working on how the ACTUAL climate(s) really operate. Those are ones I support.

I did not "pounce" on J.Curry`s work but I did object to the term "stadium wave". That`s dumbing down physics to the level how it would be taught at a Kindergarten or in a picture story book for toddlers.
I`m also pretty sure that these cycles are a lot more complex than a "stadium wave" could possibly represent.
Non synchronous waves can amplify each other or cancel out, depending on their relative phase (shift).
You can observe that every day. Even though the morning might be a carbon copy of yesterday`s morning by the end of the day you seldom have the same weather conditions as you had @ the same time a day before. There is no simple clock-work mechanism that regulates this complicated process...which is already too complex to predict the next 24 hour "mini- stadium wave" .
All it takes is a small change in the jet stream direction, a few more or less isobars per horizontal kilometer or a small change in the overcast and the next short term "stadium wave" can turn into a monster rogue wave that seemingly came from nowhere or get cancelled altogether.

It`s not complete random but as long as we can`t resolve the process and assign realistic magnitudes to all contributing components then we are not a notch better off with simplistic IPCC "climate science" and now with Curry`s "stadium waves" than with the stuff for a farmer`s almanac and fortune cookies.

Allow me to use an analogy.
You can use the same smooth bore gun with precisely the same charge and bullets and won`t be able to stay on target.
Bullets tumble and then go off in random directions unless you spin-stabilize them.
With climate predictions there is a lot more involved than what it takes to make an accurate gun.
If the problem was as simple as a "stadium wave" that could easily be compensated with an equally simple time delay shift.

 

[PMZ]

Never will get an answer to why the Climate needs to INSTANTANEOUSLY respond to a new energy balance.. OR --- why that RESPONSE needs to look just like the input. The PR campaign for AGW has "framed the optics" as they say in politics.. And there's not 1% of the population who understand complex systems.

So my question to you Mr. Bear is -- if we both believe the Climate is that much more complicated --- why did you POUNCE on that Judith Curry work (the "stadium wave" paper) that ATTEMPTS to DEFINE all those complex thermal flows, time delays and storage mechanisms? There ARE some Climate scientists working on how the ACTUAL climate(s) really operate. Those are ones I support.

I did not "pounce" on J.Curry`s work but I did object to the term "stadium wave". That`s dumbing down physics to the level how it would be taught at a Kindergarten or in a picture story book for toddlers.
I`m also pretty sure that these cycles are a lot more complex than a "stadium wave" could possibly represent.
Non synchronous waves can amplify each other or cancel out, depending on their relative phase (shift).
You can observe that every day. Even though the morning might be a carbon copy of yesterday`s morning by the end of the day you seldom have the same weather conditions as you had @ the same time a day before. There is no simple clock-work mechanism that regulates this complicated process...which is already too complex to predict the next 24 hour "mini- stadium wave" .
All it takes is a small change in the jet stream direction, a few more or less isobars per horizontal kilometer or a small change in the overcast and the next short term "stadium wave" can turn into a monster rogue wave that seemingly came from nowhere or get cancelled altogether.

It`s not complete random but as long as we can`t resolve the process and assign realistic magnitudes to all contributing components then we are not a notch better off with simplistic IPCC "climate science" and now with Curry`s "stadium waves" than with the stuff for a farmer`s almanac and fortune cookies.

Allow me to use an analogy.
You can use the same smooth bore gun with precisely the same charge and bullets and won`t be able to stay on target.
Bullets tumble and then go off in random directions unless you spin-stabilize them.
With climate predictions there is a lot more involved than what it takes to make an accurate gun.
If the problem was as simple as a "stadium wave" that could easily be compensated with an equally simple time delay shift.

I think the bottom line is that it may be years before we're able to understand the timing and it's variability between an increment of GHG concentration increase and the resulting increment of surface temperature increase.

And that says nothing about the contribution of all of the positive feedbacks that might be driven by any increment of surface temperature increase.

 

[westwall]

You miss the point. The point is that they broke the law, and those who supported their actions behaved unethically (and have yet to condemn such behavior) all for the purpose of undermining an international agreement on global warming instead of doing what everyone else was doing, which was discussing the facts. But now I see YOU are speculating instead of discussing the facts. Gee, I wonder where you got that idea?

I find it amusing that you laud Gleick for his felonious attack on the Heartland Institute because you despise them but want to torture the person who released the CLIMATEGATE emails which were demonstrating clear evidence of data falsification and fraud.

And for the record it is almost certain that it was an inside IT person who released the emails.

Since I have posted no comment on Gleick, you are clutching at straws. If you are certain that it was an inside IT person who broke the law in the e-gate case (and interesting accusation since the police cleared all of the university staff of any wrongdoing as has the university), perhaps you can give us this person's name.

I clutch at nothing. That's your specialty. As far as your statement on Gleick, EVERY AGW supporter has been in favor of what he did, some going so far as to think he deserves a medal.

As far as the supposition that it was an inside job, every IT person I have spoken to confirms that that is the most likely source. Only an insider would have access that complete and more importantly know where to Hoover up all the proper emails.

I wish I knew who it was because I would like to shake his or her hand.

 

[westwall]

Dude, in the Skepticalscience.com graph, the x-axis ranges from 1880 to 2009. The PMOD ranges from 1978 to 2012. To expect such short term cycles to show up in a much longer-term graph is, how shall I put this nicely - stoooopid. Ever hear of scaling? At any rate, both show a downward trend in TSI. The skepticascience.com graph compares that downward trend to global temperatures, and when that it done, it is clear that there is a significant divergence from 1980 to the present. Which corroborates the more recent work I posted at this link:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1107204235.htm

A link which you are still conveniently ignoring.

And which is still very dead....

Try this one. It is not dead.
Solar activity playing a minimal role in global warming, research suggests

Thank you, I'll get the paper and have a look.

 

[flacaltenn]

Never will get an answer to why the Climate needs to INSTANTANEOUSLY respond to a new energy balance.. OR --- why that RESPONSE needs to look just like the input. The PR campaign for AGW has "framed the optics" as they say in politics.. And there's not 1% of the population who understand complex systems.

So my question to you Mr. Bear is -- if we both believe the Climate is that much more complicated --- why did you POUNCE on that Judith Curry work (the "stadium wave" paper) that ATTEMPTS to DEFINE all those complex thermal flows, time delays and storage mechanisms? There ARE some Climate scientists working on how the ACTUAL climate(s) really operate. Those are ones I support.

I did not "pounce" on J.Curry`s work but I did object to the term "stadium wave". That`s dumbing down physics to the level how it would be taught at a Kindergarten or in a picture story book for toddlers.
I`m also pretty sure that these cycles are a lot more complex than a "stadium wave" could possibly represent.
Non synchronous waves can amplify each other or cancel out, depending on their relative phase (shift).
You can observe that every day. Even though the morning might be a carbon copy of yesterday`s morning by the end of the day you seldom have the same weather conditions as you had @ the same time a day before. There is no simple clock-work mechanism that regulates this complicated process...which is already too complex to predict the next 24 hour "mini- stadium wave" .
All it takes is a small change in the jet stream direction, a few more or less isobars per horizontal kilometer or a small change in the overcast and the next short term "stadium wave" can turn into a monster rogue wave that seemingly came from nowhere or get cancelled altogether.

It`s not complete random but as long as we can`t resolve the process and assign realistic magnitudes to all contributing components then we are not a notch better off with simplistic IPCC "climate science" and now with Curry`s "stadium waves" than with the stuff for a farmer`s almanac and fortune cookies.

Allow me to use an analogy.
You can use the same smooth bore gun with precisely the same charge and bullets and won`t be able to stay on target.
Bullets tumble and then go off in random directions unless you spin-stabilize them.
With climate predictions there is a lot more involved than what it takes to make an accurate gun.
If the problem was as simple as a "stadium wave" that could easily be compensated with an equally simple time delay shift.

The naming is unfortunate. But thats the price you pay these days for moving science into the mainstream.
I dont think the name was meant to imply classic wave mechanics. In fact the work that theyve done focuses on semi synchronous and semi oscillatory pieces of the climate systtem. Stuff like what makes the AMO CYCLE repeat.

The stadium wave | Climate Etc.

Building upon Wyatt’s Ph.D. thesis at the University of Colorado, Wyatt and Curry identified two key ingredients to the propagation and maintenance of this stadium wave signal: the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and sea ice extent in the Eurasian Arctic shelf seas. The AMO sets the signal’s tempo, while the sea ice bridges communication between ocean and atmosphere. The oscillatory nature of the signal can be thought of in terms of ‘braking,’ whereby positive and negative feedbacks interact in such a way as to support reversals of the circulation regimes. *As a result, climate regimes — multiple-decade intervals of warming or cooling — evolve in a spatially and temporally ordered manner. While not strictly periodic in occurrence, their repetition is regular — the order of quasi-oscillatory events remains consistent. Wyatt’s thesis found that the stadium wave signal has existed for at least 300 years.

Actually the dominant weather drivers are propagating like waves guided by pressure grads, the jet stream and rotational energy of the earth itself . But there doesnt appear to be any feedback during the propagation that CREATES more weather. Weather pulses are just energy dissipators. What curry is trying solve is generating equations for some of the dominant LONG TERM oscillatory elements. AND that starts accounting for a LOT of the thermal paths that in play as the earth equilizes thermal loads.. Might not be that hard to draw out a system that describes both the periodic events and the major thermal paths.

 

[PMZ]

Never will get an answer to why the Climate needs to INSTANTANEOUSLY respond to a new energy balance.. OR --- why that RESPONSE needs to look just like the input. The PR campaign for AGW has "framed the optics" as they say in politics.. And there's not 1% of the population who understand complex systems.

So my question to you Mr. Bear is -- if we both believe the Climate is that much more complicated --- why did you POUNCE on that Judith Curry work (the "stadium wave" paper) that ATTEMPTS to DEFINE all those complex thermal flows, time delays and storage mechanisms? There ARE some Climate scientists working on how the ACTUAL climate(s) really operate. Those are ones I support.

I did not "pounce" on J.Curry`s work but I did object to the term "stadium wave". That`s dumbing down physics to the level how it would be taught at a Kindergarten or in a picture story book for toddlers.
I`m also pretty sure that these cycles are a lot more complex than a "stadium wave" could possibly represent.
Non synchronous waves can amplify each other or cancel out, depending on their relative phase (shift).
You can observe that every day. Even though the morning might be a carbon copy of yesterday`s morning by the end of the day you seldom have the same weather conditions as you had @ the same time a day before. There is no simple clock-work mechanism that regulates this complicated process...which is already too complex to predict the next 24 hour "mini- stadium wave" .
All it takes is a small change in the jet stream direction, a few more or less isobars per horizontal kilometer or a small change in the overcast and the next short term "stadium wave" can turn into a monster rogue wave that seemingly came from nowhere or get cancelled altogether.

It`s not complete random but as long as we can`t resolve the process and assign realistic magnitudes to all contributing components then we are not a notch better off with simplistic IPCC "climate science" and now with Curry`s "stadium waves" than with the stuff for a farmer`s almanac and fortune cookies.

Allow me to use an analogy.
You can use the same smooth bore gun with precisely the same charge and bullets and won`t be able to stay on target.
Bullets tumble and then go off in random directions unless you spin-stabilize them.
With climate predictions there is a lot more involved than what it takes to make an accurate gun.
If the problem was as simple as a "stadium wave" that could easily be compensated with an equally simple time delay shift.

The naming is unfortunate. But thats the price you pay these days for moving science into the mainstream.
I dont think the name was meant to imply classic wave mechanics. In fact the work that theyve done focuses on semi synchronous and semi oscillatory pieces of the climate systtem. Stuff like what makes the AMO CYCLE repeat.

The stadium wave | Climate Etc.

Building upon Wyatt’s Ph.D. thesis at the University of Colorado, Wyatt and Curry identified two key ingredients to the propagation and maintenance of this stadium wave signal: the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and sea ice extent in the Eurasian Arctic shelf seas. The AMO sets the signal’s tempo, while the sea ice bridges communication between ocean and atmosphere. The oscillatory nature of the signal can be thought of in terms of ‘braking,’ whereby positive and negative feedbacks interact in such a way as to support reversals of the circulation regimes. *As a result, climate regimes — multiple-decade intervals of warming or cooling — evolve in a spatially and temporally ordered manner. While not strictly periodic in occurrence, their repetition is regular — the order of quasi-oscillatory events remains consistent. Wyatt’s thesis found that the stadium wave signal has existed for at least 300 years.

Actually the dominant weather drivers are propagating like waves guided by pressure grads, the jet stream and rotational energy of the earth itself . But there doesnt appear to be any feedback during the propagation that CREATES more weather. Weather pulses are just energy dissipators. What curry is trying solve is generating equations for some of the dominant LONG TERM oscillatory elements. AND that starts accounting for a LOT of the thermal paths that in play as the earth equilizes thermal loads.. Might not be that hard to draw out a system that describes both the periodic events and the major thermal paths.

Energy is conserved, not dissipated.

 

[westwall]

I did not "pounce" on J.Curry`s work but I did object to the term "stadium wave". That`s dumbing down physics to the level how it would be taught at a Kindergarten or in a picture story book for toddlers.
I`m also pretty sure that these cycles are a lot more complex than a "stadium wave" could possibly represent.
Non synchronous waves can amplify each other or cancel out, depending on their relative phase (shift).
You can observe that every day. Even though the morning might be a carbon copy of yesterday`s morning by the end of the day you seldom have the same weather conditions as you had @ the same time a day before. There is no simple clock-work mechanism that regulates this complicated process...which is already too complex to predict the next 24 hour "mini- stadium wave" .
All it takes is a small change in the jet stream direction, a few more or less isobars per horizontal kilometer or a small change in the overcast and the next short term "stadium wave" can turn into a monster rogue wave that seemingly came from nowhere or get cancelled altogether.

It`s not complete random but as long as we can`t resolve the process and assign realistic magnitudes to all contributing components then we are not a notch better off with simplistic IPCC "climate science" and now with Curry`s "stadium waves" than with the stuff for a farmer`s almanac and fortune cookies.

Allow me to use an analogy.
You can use the same smooth bore gun with precisely the same charge and bullets and won`t be able to stay on target.
Bullets tumble and then go off in random directions unless you spin-stabilize them.
With climate predictions there is a lot more involved than what it takes to make an accurate gun.
If the problem was as simple as a "stadium wave" that could easily be compensated with an equally simple time delay shift.

The naming is unfortunate. But thats the price you pay these days for moving science into the mainstream.
I dont think the name was meant to imply classic wave mechanics. In fact the work that theyve done focuses on semi synchronous and semi oscillatory pieces of the climate systtem. Stuff like what makes the AMO CYCLE repeat.

The stadium wave | Climate Etc.

Building upon Wyatt’s Ph.D. thesis at the University of Colorado, Wyatt and Curry identified two key ingredients to the propagation and maintenance of this stadium wave signal: the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and sea ice extent in the Eurasian Arctic shelf seas. The AMO sets the signal’s tempo, while the sea ice bridges communication between ocean and atmosphere. The oscillatory nature of the signal can be thought of in terms of ‘braking,’ whereby positive and negative feedbacks interact in such a way as to support reversals of the circulation regimes. *As a result, climate regimes — multiple-decade intervals of warming or cooling — evolve in a spatially and temporally ordered manner. While not strictly periodic in occurrence, their repetition is regular — the order of quasi-oscillatory events remains consistent. Wyatt’s thesis found that the stadium wave signal has existed for at least 300 years.

Actually the dominant weather drivers are propagating like waves guided by pressure grads, the jet stream and rotational energy of the earth itself . But there doesnt appear to be any feedback during the propagation that CREATES more weather. Weather pulses are just energy dissipators. What curry is trying solve is generating equations for some of the dominant LONG TERM oscillatory elements. AND that starts accounting for a LOT of the thermal paths that in play as the earth equilizes thermal loads.. Might not be that hard to draw out a system that describes both the periodic events and the major thermal paths.

Energy is conserved, not dissipated.

Define ENTROPY and how it relates to energy.....

 

[PMZ]

The naming is unfortunate. But thats the price you pay these days for moving science into the mainstream.
I dont think the name was meant to imply classic wave mechanics. In fact the work that theyve done focuses on semi synchronous and semi oscillatory pieces of the climate systtem. Stuff like what makes the AMO CYCLE repeat.

The stadium wave | Climate Etc.



Actually the dominant weather drivers are propagating like waves guided by pressure grads, the jet stream and rotational energy of the earth itself . But there doesnt appear to be any feedback during the propagation that CREATES more weather. Weather pulses are just energy dissipators. What curry is trying solve is generating equations for some of the dominant LONG TERM oscillatory elements. AND that starts accounting for a LOT of the thermal paths that in play as the earth equilizes thermal loads.. Might not be that hard to draw out a system that describes both the periodic events and the major thermal paths.

Energy is conserved, not dissipated.

Define ENTROPY and how it relates to energy.....

Irrelevant.