Sun Solar cycles is real, man made global warming is false.

[skookerasbil]

Funny how the climate crusading nutters absolutely flip out if anything is put out there that doesn't conform with the established AGW narrative.



gay

 

[itfitzme]

Funny how the climate crusading nutters absolutely flip out if anything is put out there that doesn't conform with the established AGW narrative.



gay

Like what? Show one.

 

[itfitzme]

All this time with you and you STILL DON"T KNOW the freaking difference between TSI and SunSpot Number??? We're done also... You're not paying attention.. Is it because you can't ---- or you won't ???

You tried that one before. Why don't you show us this huuuge disconnnect - this complete lack of correlation - between sunspots and TSI.

Primarily needs to be in the correct units. And you're not gonna see an appreciable diff on a 30 yr scale.. You should know that. If the TSI increased 1.2W/m2 over 300 yrs, how much did it change on your 30 yr graph?

And here's the punchline --- which will go right thru your ears without further consideration.

NO ONE should be expecting a forcing function to have the SAME SHAPE OR TIMING as the observed temp.. Only brainless models of a complex thermal system would expect that.
When a forcing function takes a step to a higher value (like TSI did) and REMAINS at that increased value --- it doesn't mean the temperature is done climbing..

A thermal system with storage in it involves a system transfer with integrals. What is the response of an integral to a step function? It's a RAMP.. like the temperature change we saw in the 80s and 90s.

Why? Because as you said before there is still an imbalance in the amount of energy coming in and that going out.. EVEN IF ITS A CONSTANT AMOUNT --- the total amount of heat WILL ACCUMULATE linearly and thus drive the temperature higher. Most likely with a considerable time constant or delay. (this is all documented in the lit)

The shape of the forcing function never DID have to match the shape of the temperature curve.. You've just been misled by Climate Scientists who never took Linear Systems, Non-Linear Systems, Stochastic Systems, and are just NOW discovering energy storage, temporal delays, and Fourier combinations of periodic functions causing ramps and complex shapes.

Just because you see a pause in the warming doesn't mean that the forcing function paused at the same time. And similiarly, just because you see a pause in a forcing function, doesn't mean that the temperature is about to stall.

Raising the dial on the range does not ALONE control the temperature of the water in the pot. The temperature is determined by the imbalance between energy in and out over time. The water can continue to heat if the dial stays put and the energy in EXCEEDS the energy out.

It could even look like a hockey stick if you wanted it to be one...

Without moving the dial again.



Think more --- rely on the internet less.....

First off, there is no step function. You can look at all the potential inputs and there are no step functions. Solar cycles aren't a step function.

Yeah, but the forcing function actually has to go up and stay up, not oscillate about a mean. If it oscillates about a mean, then the forced function will oscillate without maintaining a steady upward trend.

If the input is sin(wt), the output will be sin(wt+theta). If the input is a square wave, the output will be a series of natural exponential increases and decreases in a sort of saw tooth form.

What does happen, in natural systems, is that is the input is a step function, the output is a natural exponential function that asymtotes. If the input is a square wave or sinusoidal input, the output is sinusoidal.

The only way to get a constant ramping output is to have a constant ramping input. Why? Because the output goes up an e^(-1/x) and ends up being asymptotic to some limiting value. This is typical of natural systems because natural systems have a rate of change that is proportional to the level. With the thermostat suddenly turned up, the temperature will increase rapidly at first, then increase slowly as the temperature begins to reach a new steady state value where the losses are equal to the inputs.

And, statistically, it will still show correlation given the correct lag. Sin correlates with cos, with a phase shift. What doesn't correlate with a sine is a constant slope.

A Fourier series creates a periodic function like a saw tooth or a square wave. And, it has to be an infinite series. There are no infinite series of periodic functions in the earth climate.

And, the resultant shape of the Fourier series is correlated with the periodic function that it produces because Fourier series is correlation.

You want to talk about the mathematics of convolution now?

 

[skookerasbil]

You tried that one before. Why don't you show us this huuuge disconnnect - this complete lack of correlation - between sunspots and TSI.

Primarily needs to be in the correct units. And you're not gonna see an appreciable diff on a 30 yr scale.. You should know that. If the TSI increased 1.2W/m2 over 300 yrs, how much did it change on your 30 yr graph?

And here's the punchline --- which will go right thru your ears without further consideration.

NO ONE should be expecting a forcing function to have the SAME SHAPE OR TIMING as the observed temp.. Only brainless models of a complex thermal system would expect that.
When a forcing function takes a step to a higher value (like TSI did) and REMAINS at that increased value --- it doesn't mean the temperature is done climbing..

A thermal system with storage in it involves a system transfer with integrals. What is the response of an integral to a step function? It's a RAMP.. like the temperature change we saw in the 80s and 90s.

Why? Because as you said before there is still an imbalance in the amount of energy coming in and that going out.. EVEN IF ITS A CONSTANT AMOUNT --- the total amount of heat WILL ACCUMULATE linearly and thus drive the temperature higher. Most likely with a considerable time constant or delay. (this is all documented in the lit)

The shape of the forcing function never DID have to match the shape of the temperature curve.. You've just been misled by Climate Scientists who never took Linear Systems, Non-Linear Systems, Stochastic Systems, and are just NOW discovering energy storage, temporal delays, and Fourier combinations of periodic functions causing ramps and complex shapes.

Just because you see a pause in the warming doesn't mean that the forcing function paused at the same time. And similiarly, just because you see a pause in a forcing function, doesn't mean that the temperature is about to stall.

Raising the dial on the range does not ALONE control the temperature of the water in the pot. The temperature is determined by the imbalance between energy in and out over time. The water can continue to heat if the dial stays put and the energy in EXCEEDS the energy out.

It could even look like a hockey stick if you wanted it to be one...

Without moving the dial again.



Think more --- rely on the internet less.....

First off, there is no step function. You can look at all the potential inputs and there are no step functions. Solar cycles aren't a step function.

Yeah, but the forcing function actually has to go up and stay up, not oscillate about a mean. If it oscillates about a mean, then the forced function will oscillate without maintaining a steady upward trend.

If the input is sin(wt), the output will be sin(wt+theta). If the input is a square wave, the output will be a series of natural exponential increases and decreases in a sort of saw tooth form.

What does happen, in natural systems, is that is the input is a step function, the output is a natural exponential function that asymtotes. If the input is a square wave or sinusoidal input, the output is sinusoidal.

The only way to get a constant ramping output is to have a constant ramping input. Why? Because the output goes up an e^(-1/x) and ends up being asymptotic to some limiting value. This is typical of natural systems because natural systems have a rate of change that is proportional to the level. With the thermostat suddenly turned up, the temperature will increase rapidly at first, then increase slowly as the temperature begins to reach a new steady state value where the losses are equal to the inputs.

And, statistically, it will still show correlation given the correct lag. Sin correlates with cos, with a phase shift. What doesn't correlate with a sine is a constant slope.

A Fourier series creates a periodic function like a saw tooth or a square wave. And, it has to be an infinite series. There are no infinite series of periodic functions in the earth climate.

And, the resultant shape of the Fourier series is correlated with the periodic function that it produces because Fourier series is correlation.

You want to talk about the mathematics of convolution now?

more gayness.........


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8otvwsjkho]She Blinded Me With Science ~ Thomas Dolby - YouTube[/ame]




nobody cares

 

[Abraham3]

I'd get back to you on that Skooks, if only I could see what it was you wrote. All I get is "This message is hidden because skookerasbil is on your ignore list". Go figger.

 

[flacaltenn]

You've just been misled by Climate Scientists who never took Linear Systems, Non-Linear Systems, Stochastic Systems, and are just NOW discovering energy storage, temporal delays, and Fourier combinations of periodic functions causing ramps and complex shapes.

Competent scientists understand that curve-fitting isn't science. Since you're completely incompetent, you rely entirely on curve-fitting.

"Fourier combinations of periodic functions" can be fit to _any_ finite curve. Literally. That's very basic stuff, but poor Flac doesn't get it, or why such curve fitting is so meaningless. He's happy to be sitting in the corner mathturbating, and doesn't understand why no one wants to watch him doing it.

You just exposed a massive amount of ignoorance. Everything I said in that previous post wasmocking curve filters who expect tthe stimulus to completely match the rsponse of a complex system. Go ahead ill give u another whack at an intelligient comment.

 

[Abraham3]

You've just been misled by Climate Scientists who never took Linear Systems, Non-Linear Systems, Stochastic Systems, and are just NOW discovering energy storage, temporal delays, and Fourier combinations of periodic functions causing ramps and complex shapes.

Competent scientists understand that curve-fitting isn't science. Since you're completely incompetent, you rely entirely on curve-fitting.

"Fourier combinations of periodic functions" can be fit to _any_ finite curve. Literally. That's very basic stuff, but poor Flac doesn't get it, or why such curve fitting is so meaningless. He's happy to be sitting in the corner mathturbating, and doesn't understand why no one wants to watch him doing it.

You just exposed a massive amount of ignoorance. Everything I said in that previous post wasmocking curve filters who expect tthe stimulus to completely match the rsponse of a complex system. Go ahead ill give u another whack at an intelligient comment.

I assume you meant "curve fitters". I also assume you just exposed a massive amount of dishonesty here. If this is mockery, where's the emoticon?

Do you actually think it's an accurate statement to say that climate scientists - in general - have not studied these various mathematical branches? I would think that as heavily as most climate scientists have to get into statistical studies of large, multivariate datasets and the construction of models to play with such things, that it's instead quite likely they'd study non-linear and stochastic analysis.

I bet they haven't studied hydrogen embrittlement corrosion in marine surface penetrating counterwound steel cables. What idiots! Right? What each of us knows may make us special dude, but it doesn't say diddly one way or t'other about anyone else.

 

[Abraham3]

All this time with you and you STILL DON"T KNOW the freaking difference between TSI and SunSpot Number??? We're done also... You're not paying attention.. Is it because you can't ---- or you won't ???

You tried that one before. Why don't you show us this huuuge disconnnect - this complete lack of correlation - between sunspots and TSI.

Primarily needs to be in the correct units. And you're not gonna see an appreciable diff on a 30 yr scale.. You should know that. If the TSI increased 1.2W/m2 over 300 yrs, how much did it change on your 30 yr graph?

And here's the punchline --- which will go right thru your ears without further consideration.

NO ONE should be expecting a forcing function to have the SAME SHAPE OR TIMING as the observed temp.. Only brainless models of a complex thermal system would expect that.
When a forcing function takes a step to a higher value (like TSI did) and REMAINS at that increased value --- it doesn't mean the temperature is done climbing..

A thermal system with storage in it involves a system transfer with integrals. What is the response of an integral to a step function? It's a RAMP.. like the temperature change we saw in the 80s and 90s.

Why? Because as you said before there is still an imbalance in the amount of energy coming in and that going out.. EVEN IF ITS A CONSTANT AMOUNT --- the total amount of heat WILL ACCUMULATE linearly and thus drive the temperature higher. Most likely with a considerable time constant or delay. (this is all documented in the lit)

The shape of the forcing function never DID have to match the shape of the temperature curve.. You've just been misled by Climate Scientists who never took Linear Systems, Non-Linear Systems, Stochastic Systems, and are just NOW discovering energy storage, temporal delays, and Fourier combinations of periodic functions causing ramps and complex shapes.

Just because you see a pause in the warming doesn't mean that the forcing function paused at the same time. And similiarly, just because you see a pause in a forcing function, doesn't mean that the temperature is about to stall.

Raising the dial on the range does not ALONE control the temperature of the water in the pot. The temperature is determined by the imbalance between energy in and out over time. The water can continue to heat if the dial stays put and the energy in EXCEEDS the energy out.

It could even look like a hockey stick if you wanted it to be one...

Without moving the dial again.



Think more --- rely on the internet less.....

Two points:

1) You claimed there was no correlation between TSI and sunspots. That was why I threw that graph up there. You failed to even mention that point.

2) What solar parameter do you believe to have executed a step function?

3) That the result of the independent changes of a forcing function would map to its integral came in the 12th grade. Not only do I know it, but I'll bet you a dollar to a donut that every climate scientist on the face of the planet knows it.

 

[flacaltenn]

You tried that one before. Why don't you show us this huuuge disconnnect - this complete lack of correlation - between sunspots and TSI.

Primarily needs to be in the correct units. And you're not gonna see an appreciable diff on a 30 yr scale.. You should know that. If the TSI increased 1.2W/m2 over 300 yrs, how much did it change on your 30 yr graph?

And here's the punchline --- which will go right thru your ears without further consideration.

NO ONE should be expecting a forcing function to have the SAME SHAPE OR TIMING as the observed temp.. Only brainless models of a complex thermal system would expect that.
When a forcing function takes a step to a higher value (like TSI did) and REMAINS at that increased value --- it doesn't mean the temperature is done climbing..

A thermal system with storage in it involves a system transfer with integrals. What is the response of an integral to a step function? It's a RAMP.. like the temperature change we saw in the 80s and 90s.

Why? Because as you said before there is still an imbalance in the amount of energy coming in and that going out.. EVEN IF ITS A CONSTANT AMOUNT --- the total amount of heat WILL ACCUMULATE linearly and thus drive the temperature higher. Most likely with a considerable time constant or delay. (this is all documented in the lit)

The shape of the forcing function never DID have to match the shape of the temperature curve.. You've just been misled by Climate Scientists who never took Linear Systems, Non-Linear Systems, Stochastic Systems, and are just NOW discovering energy storage, temporal delays, and Fourier combinations of periodic functions causing ramps and complex shapes.

Just because you see a pause in the warming doesn't mean that the forcing function paused at the same time. And similiarly, just because you see a pause in a forcing function, doesn't mean that the temperature is about to stall.

Raising the dial on the range does not ALONE control the temperature of the water in the pot. The temperature is determined by the imbalance between energy in and out over time. The water can continue to heat if the dial stays put and the energy in EXCEEDS the energy out.

It could even look like a hockey stick if you wanted it to be one...

Without moving the dial again.



Think more --- rely on the internet less.....

Two points:

1) You claimed there was no correlation between TSI and sunspots. That was why I threw that graph up there. You failed to even mention that point.

2) What solar parameter do you believe to have executed a step function?

3) That the result of the independent changes of a forcing function would map to its integral came in the 12th grade. Not only do I know it, but I'll bet you a dollar to a donut that every climate scientist on the face of the planet knows it.

1) I DID address that in the FIRST SENTENCES of my response.. Go back and read it..
The fact that you claimed I "failed to even mention that point" is why I don't take you seriously anymore.. {{I even asked you a question which of course you ignore, to see if you were following my response}}

2) I used a step function as an example of system stimulus that can evoke a ramp, exponential or other disparate shape as response. HOWEVER, I believe you missed the close analogy to the fact that TSI has RAMPED UP considerably over the past 300 yrs and MAINTAINS at a relative high value even now. (except for the ice age we're about to enter). (emoticon sarcasm for your benefit). So if there remains a heat transfer imbalance at that "step level" --- temperatures (as a system response) could continue to rise WITHOUT a matching rise in stimulus.. Only idiots and morons are practicing curve fitting between stimulus and response of a complex thermal system...

3) They may know the integral of a step is a ramp.. But what they DON'T seem to know is that EVEN BY THEIR DESCRIPTION of the climate system, that the system response NEED NOT LOOK EVEN VAGUELY similiar to the stimulus that is driving it. See my post below to Mr. SnowJob... We've wasted 20 years looking for forcing functions that instanteously map to a silly and arbitrary "global average temperature" curve response. INSTEAD of doing real science modeling..

 

[Abraham3]

That we won't see an appreciable difference on a 30 year scale? Both sunspots and TSI have gone through three significant cycles on that graph, of an amplitude at least as large as anything TSI will do over a millenia and they are in virtually perfect synchrony. If you think there's a break at some scale or other, show it to us.

TSI has increased 0.5 W/m^2 since 1850.

Explain to me how a response function does not map to its forcing function one to one. What are you actually suggesting? Variable lagging? Variable sensitivity? Please explain why you think the response will be somehow nonlinear from forcing? And if that's your claim, you better have an excellent idea what's causing such effects, else you will never be able to make a case that the two are causally related.

 

[flacaltenn]

You tried that one before. Why don't you show us this huuuge disconnnect - this complete lack of correlation - between sunspots and TSI.

Primarily needs to be in the correct units. And you're not gonna see an appreciable diff on a 30 yr scale.. You should know that. If the TSI increased 1.2W/m2 over 300 yrs, how much did it change on your 30 yr graph?

And here's the punchline --- which will go right thru your ears without further consideration.

NO ONE should be expecting a forcing function to have the SAME SHAPE OR TIMING as the observed temp.. Only brainless models of a complex thermal system would expect that.
When a forcing function takes a step to a higher value (like TSI did) and REMAINS at that increased value --- it doesn't mean the temperature is done climbing..

A thermal system with storage in it involves a system transfer with integrals. What is the response of an integral to a step function? It's a RAMP.. like the temperature change we saw in the 80s and 90s.

Why? Because as you said before there is still an imbalance in the amount of energy coming in and that going out.. EVEN IF ITS A CONSTANT AMOUNT --- the total amount of heat WILL ACCUMULATE linearly and thus drive the temperature higher. Most likely with a considerable time constant or delay. (this is all documented in the lit)

The shape of the forcing function never DID have to match the shape of the temperature curve.. You've just been misled by Climate Scientists who never took Linear Systems, Non-Linear Systems, Stochastic Systems, and are just NOW discovering energy storage, temporal delays, and Fourier combinations of periodic functions causing ramps and complex shapes.

Just because you see a pause in the warming doesn't mean that the forcing function paused at the same time. And similiarly, just because you see a pause in a forcing function, doesn't mean that the temperature is about to stall.

Raising the dial on the range does not ALONE control the temperature of the water in the pot. The temperature is determined by the imbalance between energy in and out over time. The water can continue to heat if the dial stays put and the energy in EXCEEDS the energy out.

It could even look like a hockey stick if you wanted it to be one...

Without moving the dial again.



Think more --- rely on the internet less.....

First off, there is no step function. You can look at all the potential inputs and there are no step functions. Solar cycles aren't a step function.

Yeah, but the forcing function actually has to go up and stay up, not oscillate about a mean. If it oscillates about a mean, then the forced function will oscillate without maintaining a steady upward trend.

If the input is sin(wt), the output will be sin(wt+theta). If the input is a square wave, the output will be a series of natural exponential increases and decreases in a sort of saw tooth form.

What does happen, in natural systems, is that is the input is a step function, the output is a natural exponential function that asymtotes. If the input is a square wave or sinusoidal input, the output is sinusoidal.

The only way to get a constant ramping output is to have a constant ramping input. Why? Because the output goes up an e^(-1/x) and ends up being asymptotic to some limiting value. This is typical of natural systems because natural systems have a rate of change that is proportional to the level. With the thermostat suddenly turned up, the temperature will increase rapidly at first, then increase slowly as the temperature begins to reach a new steady state value where the losses are equal to the inputs.

And, statistically, it will still show correlation given the correct lag. Sin correlates with cos, with a phase shift. What doesn't correlate with a sine is a constant slope.

A Fourier series creates a periodic function like a saw tooth or a square wave. And, it has to be an infinite series. There are no infinite series of periodic functions in the earth climate.

And, the resultant shape of the Fourier series is correlated with the periodic function that it produces because Fourier series is correlation.

You want to talk about the mathematics of convolution now?

Are you a PROFESSION CON ARTIST?? Or just the victim of poor on-line degree?

From henceforce ye shall be knownst as Mr. Snowjob.. Particularly for your hiliarously deconvoluted vision of Fourier transforms or the relation to correlation.. (there IS a relation -- but Fourier analysis IS NOT correlation my conniving parasite).

The TSI has taken an approximation of a step function since the 1700 and is now sitting at a relative MAXIMUM value for about 40 years or so.. In the temporal world of climate change -- a ramp up to 1.2W/m2 over 300 years with an appreciable pause can be roughly modeled as in the "step function family"...

Here's the situation.. The thermal system of the earth's climate is NOT a simple transfer transfer function.. We do however -- know a great deal about what's in that box. To wit...

1) The system contains heat energy storage element in it largest absorber (the oceans). This implies a reactive element based on integrals of the forcing function.. There may be other storage elements of shorter duration as well on land and in the atmos itself.

2) There are known delays in response to forcing functions.. These are excellently displayed in the deep historical records to the resolution of the proxies. This also adds complexity to the system transfer function. It is EXPECTED that a ball as large and complex as the earth will have hefty thermal time constants and delays. There's no way around that..

3) There are both Linear and NonLinear elements present in the system. Things like temp threshholds where ice starts to viciously melt are HIGHLY NON-LINEAR elements. The presence of non-linear elements further guarantees that the response will almost certainly NOT LOOK LIKE THE STIMULUS.

4) We know there are feedbacks, both positive and negative with their time constants and "gains or sensitivities"..

5) We also realize that despite the climate insistence on making everything a "global average" --- there are many distinct climate zones with their own unique set of gains, sensitivities and feedbacks. So the "black box transfer function" is actually multiple series/parallel paths further complicating the expected response.

6) We are faced with a whole range of POSSIBLE stimuluses although climate science has focused solely on CO2 unless they need a raft of excuses to escape upon.. So developing a COMPOSITE stimulus for this system is as daunting as analyzing the system itself..

Given those six ((and there are probably many other "guesses" at what's "in the box")), ANY scientist will tell you that it is POSITIVELY CERTAIN --- that a system composed of those elements is NOT REQUIRED to have a response that looks, or is shaped, or correlates with, the stimulus that is forcing it.. Make that read --- Any scientist with sufficient PHYSICS or ENGINEERING skills...

To channel the IPCC --- I am 98% CERTAIN that the OBSERVED HISTORICAL TEMPERATURE record for the earth climate does NOT require a curve fitted, matching forcing function..

I imagine that soon (maybe in my lifetime) the fledgling climate scientists will acknowledge this as they realize HOW MUCH MODELING they have left "out of the box"...

 

[flacaltenn]

That we won't see an appreciable difference on a 30 year scale? Both sunspots and TSI have gone through three significant cycles on that graph, of an amplitude at least as large as anything TSI will do over a millenia and they are in virtually perfect synchrony. If you think there's a break at some scale or other, show it to us.

TSI has increased 0.5 W/m^2 since 1850.

Why do you think it's been called the Solar Constant for centuries?? Because it varies slowly... NOT ON THE SCALE you depicted.. Sun spot number is a predictor of solar irradiation at anytime but it's baseline is removed and is not in W/m2. THey are not the same. TSI has increased MORE THAN a W/m2 since the last solar min in 17XX. And to put that into perspective --- the IPCC is only looking for about 1.6W/m2 to explain the whole current era warming. That's about 0.1% of the TSI number. So if variances THAT SMALL are all it takes it begs a further question...

I am intrigued by the fact that we not only consider the TSI to be a "constant", but we also ASSUME that the shape of its spectrum is ALSO invariant.. A burning furnace with all the complex pole inversions and cycling of our sun might imply that this spectral shape is also variant. This you cannot accurately measure from the surface of the earth. Because the very gases we are studying punch holes in that spectral distribution as it comes thru the atmos. They USED to climb mtns to go attempt measurements. NOW we have satellites. But we've only had spectrometers doing real time measurements up for about 15 years. Less than a complete solar cycle..

Imagine that when you convolve the incident spectral distribution with all it's complex lines and shapes that just ONE of the GHGases has a line of absorption at a place in that distribution where the sun's energy is changing.. It would modulate the GreenHouse effect. and How much would that line have to change in height or frequency? Very very little...

We don't know JACKSHIT about how this convolution would change over time..
What we DO KNOW is that we expect our "yellow" sun to go "orange" and eventually "red" before the "Game Over" sign appears. So we KNOW that the furnace spectrum is EXPECTED to vary.. We need 20 more years of SATELLITE spectrometry to look for changes.

Explain to me how a response function does not map to its forcing function one to one. What are you actually suggesting? Variable lagging? Variable sensitivity? Please explain why you think the response will be somehow nonlinear from forcing? And if that's your claim, you better have an excellent idea what's causing such effects, else you will never be able to make a case that the two are causally related.

Linear system theory.. Elemental view is you have a black box with a transfer function described by a state equation.. Let's use electrical analogies. Black box contains a resistor -- the output DOES MATCH the input for all forcing functions with a simple gain and offset. Pretty much totally correlated shapes.. That's the simple ass (wrong) CO2 climate model.

However --- you start adding components like capacitors and inductors with leading and lagging phase operators (delay, storage) and all of sudden, the output of that box looks NOTHING like the input stimulus.. You can make a FILTER or a DELAY LINE, or a radio reciever out of those elemental component models. Output BY DESIGN looks nothing like the input..

Put FEEDBACKS (positive and negative) around that black box and suddenly you can get shit to OSCILLATE or ring or compute differentials and integrals.. THAT almost guarantees incoherence between the input and the output. (even a resistor in a POSITIVE feedback will change more than gain or offset)..

Don't let the fact that I used electrical components throw you.. My daughter is 4th yr neuroscience and called me last week to complain that she has to become an electronics engineer to understand the analogies that are in her coursework.. RLC (resistor, capacitor, inductor) models and electrical feedback analogies also appear in thermo. The L and C components are just INTEGRALS and DIFFERENTIAL operators. Just like other natural phenomena. That's why Linear, Nonlinear, and Stochastic systems analysis is UNIVERSAL for all fields of study..

So I just gave you a list of the components that we KNOW are in the climate black box in my previous post.
And THEY not only have reactive components and feedback, but they also contain NON-LINEAR elements and effects. Also contains statistically driven components in the weather patterns and ocean currents and periodic shit that we know goes on..

So THE BOX WE'RE studying should NEVER HAVE BEEN EXPECTED to have an output result that HAD TO MATCH the stimulus.. Never, ever... That's Sesame Street science. You know where Big Bird sings --- "one of these things is not like the other"..

THAT'S what climate science brought us for 20 years by focusing solely on CO2 and stupid single numbers for "global averages"...
Sesame Street science expectations..

 

[Abraham3]

That we won't see an appreciable difference on a 30 year scale? Both sunspots and TSI have gone through three significant cycles on that graph, of an amplitude at least as large as anything TSI will do over a millenia and they are in virtually perfect synchrony. If you think there's a break at some scale or other, show it to us.

TSI has increased 0.5 W/m^2 since 1850.

Why do you think it's been called the Solar Constant for centuries?? Because it varies slowly... NOT ON THE SCALE you depicted.. Sun spot number is a predictor of solar irradiation at anytime but it's baseline is removed and is not in W/m2. THey are not the same. TSI has increased MORE THAN a W/m2 since the last solar min in 17XX. And to put that into perspective --- the IPCC is only looking for about 1.6W/m2 to explain the whole current era warming. That's about 0.1% of the TSI number. So if variances THAT SMALL are all it takes it begs a further question...

I am intrigued by the fact that we not only consider the TSI to be a "constant", but we also ASSUME that the shape of its spectrum is ALSO invariant.. A burning furnace with all the complex pole inversions and cycling of our sun might imply that this spectral shape is also variant. This you cannot accurately measure from the surface of the earth. Because the very gases we are studying punch holes in that spectral distribution as it comes thru the atmos. They USED to climb mtns to go attempt measurements. NOW we have satellites. But we've only had spectrometers doing real time measurements up for about 15 years. Less than a complete solar cycle..

Imagine that when you convolve the incident spectral distribution with all it's complex lines and shapes that just ONE of the GHGases has a line of absorption at a place in that distribution where the sun's energy is changing.. It would modulate the GreenHouse effect. and How much would that line have to change in height or frequency? Very very little...

We don't know JACKSHIT about how this convolution would change over time..
What we DO KNOW is that we expect our "yellow" sun to go "orange" and eventually "red" before the "Game Over" sign appears. So we KNOW that the furnace spectrum is EXPECTED to vary.. We need 20 more years of SATELLITE spectrometry to look for changes.

Explain to me how a response function does not map to its forcing function one to one. What are you actually suggesting? Variable lagging? Variable sensitivity? Please explain why you think the response will be somehow nonlinear from forcing? And if that's your claim, you better have an excellent idea what's causing such effects, else you will never be able to make a case that the two are causally related.

Linear system theory.. Elemental view is you have a black box with a transfer function described by a state equation.. Let's use electrical analogies. Black box contains a resistor -- the output DOES MATCH the input for all forcing functions with a simple gain and offset. Pretty much totally correlated shapes.. That's the simple ass (wrong) CO2 climate model.

However --- you start adding components like capacitors and inductors with leading and lagging phase operators (delay, storage) and all of sudden, the output of that box looks NOTHING like the input stimulus.. You can make a FILTER or a DELAY LINE, or a radio reciever out of those elemental component models. Output BY DESIGN looks nothing like the input..

Put FEEDBACKS (positive and negative) around that black box and suddenly you can get shit to OSCILLATE or ring or compute differentials and integrals.. THAT almost guarantees incoherence between the input and the output. (even a resistor in a POSITIVE feedback will change more than gain or offset)..

Don't let the fact that I used electrical components throw you.. My daughter is 4th yr neuroscience and called me last week to complain that she has to become an electronics engineer to understand the analogies that are in her coursework.. RLC (resistor, capacitor, inductor) models and electrical feedback analogies also appear in thermo. The L and C components are just INTEGRALS and DIFFERENTIAL operators. Just like other natural phenomena. That's why Linear, Nonlinear, and Stochastic systems analysis is UNIVERSAL for all fields of study..

So I just gave you a list of the components that we KNOW are in the climate black box in my previous post.
And THEY not only have reactive components and feedback, but they also contain NON-LINEAR elements and effects. Also contains statistically driven components in the weather patterns and ocean currents and periodic shit that we know goes on..

So THE BOX WE'RE studying should NEVER HAVE BEEN EXPECTED to have an output result that HAD TO MATCH the stimulus.. Never, ever... That's Sesame Street science. You know where Big Bird sings --- "one of these things is not like the other"..

THAT'S what climate science brought us for 20 years by focusing solely on CO2 and stupid single numbers for "global averages"...
Sesame Street science expectations..

I am familiar with RLC circuits.

Sunspot number is not given in W/m^2 ?!?! Well blow me down! Who'd a thunk.

By direct measurement, the sun's forcing is a very small fraction of the forcing determined for greenhouse effects. No matter what the relationship between forcing and response might be, 1.5 W/m^2 will have more effect than will 0.07 W/m^2.

I'm also curious why the response to direct solar heating should have a vastly more complex response correlation than longwave trapping and reradiation by greenhouse gases distributed throughout the atmosphere. For that matter, what is the logic behind rejecting AGW - whose components are determinant, whose forcing amplitude is sufficient and whose apparent response is relatively linear and instead fixating on a source that, by measure, has inadequate power to do that job and works through some complex and variable function that you have yet to delineate or explain.

Your comments regarding complex effects require a signal component seriously lacking on the time scale of interest here: frequency. Both TSI and the Earth's average temperature over the last 150 years (like any time-variant signal) could be FFT-ed and produce some spectral components, but the amplitude of any of them would be insignificant in comparison to heat content's simple non-oscillatory rise over time. Thus the consequence of a filter in your circuit - one for whose creation you've yet to even suggest a mechanism - would have almost no discernible effect over the time scale of interest.

Perhaps, however, you're on to the cause of the apparent long cycle (~60 years) in the PDO that caused the 1941-1979 hiatus and the current one as well; when more of the sun's trapped heat gets sequestered in the deep ocean. But, that's an oscillation. The Earth's growing heat content, at least on the scale of the Industrial Revolution, is not oscillatory. It's just growing.

GHGs in the Earth's atmosphere (considered in a steady state) maintain it's temperature approximately 33C (59F) higher than it would be without them. Why you should go to such lengths to reject the idea that additional GHGs (a 40% increase in CO2) could have the effect observed eludes me completely. But, carry on. Thinking hard - and learning from it - is good for our health.

 

[itfitzme]

Primarily needs to be in the correct units. And you're not gonna see an appreciable diff on a 30 yr scale.. You should know that. If the TSI increased 1.2W/m2 over 300 yrs, how much did it change on your 30 yr graph?

And here's the punchline --- which will go right thru your ears without further consideration.

NO ONE should be expecting a forcing function to have the SAME SHAPE OR TIMING as the observed temp.. Only brainless models of a complex thermal system would expect that.
When a forcing function takes a step to a higher value (like TSI did) and REMAINS at that increased value --- it doesn't mean the temperature is done climbing..

A thermal system with storage in it involves a system transfer with integrals. What is the response of an integral to a step function? It's a RAMP.. like the temperature change we saw in the 80s and 90s.

Why? Because as you said before there is still an imbalance in the amount of energy coming in and that going out.. EVEN IF ITS A CONSTANT AMOUNT --- the total amount of heat WILL ACCUMULATE linearly and thus drive the temperature higher. Most likely with a considerable time constant or delay. (this is all documented in the lit)

The shape of the forcing function never DID have to match the shape of the temperature curve.. You've just been misled by Climate Scientists who never took Linear Systems, Non-Linear Systems, Stochastic Systems, and are just NOW discovering energy storage, temporal delays, and Fourier combinations of periodic functions causing ramps and complex shapes.

Just because you see a pause in the warming doesn't mean that the forcing function paused at the same time. And similiarly, just because you see a pause in a forcing function, doesn't mean that the temperature is about to stall.

Raising the dial on the range does not ALONE control the temperature of the water in the pot. The temperature is determined by the imbalance between energy in and out over time. The water can continue to heat if the dial stays put and the energy in EXCEEDS the energy out.

It could even look like a hockey stick if you wanted it to be one...

Without moving the dial again.



Think more --- rely on the internet less.....

First off, there is no step function. You can look at all the potential inputs and there are no step functions. Solar cycles aren't a step function.

Yeah, but the forcing function actually has to go up and stay up, not oscillate about a mean. If it oscillates about a mean, then the forced function will oscillate without maintaining a steady upward trend.

If the input is sin(wt), the output will be sin(wt+theta). If the input is a square wave, the output will be a series of natural exponential increases and decreases in a sort of saw tooth form.

What does happen, in natural systems, is that is the input is a step function, the output is a natural exponential function that asymtotes. If the input is a square wave or sinusoidal input, the output is sinusoidal.

The only way to get a constant ramping output is to have a constant ramping input. Why? Because the output goes up an e^(-1/x) and ends up being asymptotic to some limiting value. This is typical of natural systems because natural systems have a rate of change that is proportional to the level. With the thermostat suddenly turned up, the temperature will increase rapidly at first, then increase slowly as the temperature begins to reach a new steady state value where the losses are equal to the inputs.

And, statistically, it will still show correlation given the correct lag. Sin correlates with cos, with a phase shift. What doesn't correlate with a sine is a constant slope.

A Fourier series creates a periodic function like a saw tooth or a square wave. And, it has to be an infinite series. There are no infinite series of periodic functions in the earth climate.

And, the resultant shape of the Fourier series is correlated with the periodic function that it produces because Fourier series is correlation.

You want to talk about the mathematics of convolution now?

Are you a PROFESSION CON ARTIST?? Or just the victim of poor on-line degree?

From henceforce ye shall be knownst as Mr. Snowjob.. Particularly for your hiliarously deconvoluted vision of Fourier transforms or the relation to correlation.. (there IS a relation -- but Fourier analysis IS NOT correlation my conniving parasite).

The TSI has taken an approximation of a step function since the 1700 and is now sitting at a relative MAXIMUM value for about 40 years or so.. In the temporal world of climate change -- a ramp up to 1.2W/m2 over 300 years with an appreciable pause can be roughly modeled as in the "step function family"...

Here's the situation.. The thermal system of the earth's climate is NOT a simple transfer transfer function.. We do however -- know a great deal about what's in that box. To wit...

1) The system contains heat energy storage element in it largest absorber (the oceans). This implies a reactive element based on integrals of the forcing function.. There may be other storage elements of shorter duration as well on land and in the atmos itself.

2) There are known delays in response to forcing functions.. These are excellently displayed in the deep historical records to the resolution of the proxies. This also adds complexity to the system transfer function. It is EXPECTED that a ball as large and complex as the earth will have hefty thermal time constants and delays. There's no way around that..

3) There are both Linear and NonLinear elements present in the system. Things like temp threshholds where ice starts to viciously melt are HIGHLY NON-LINEAR elements. The presence of non-linear elements further guarantees that the response will almost certainly NOT LOOK LIKE THE STIMULUS.

4) We know there are feedbacks, both positive and negative with their time constants and "gains or sensitivities"..

5) We also realize that despite the climate insistence on making everything a "global average" --- there are many distinct climate zones with their own unique set of gains, sensitivities and feedbacks. So the "black box transfer function" is actually multiple series/parallel paths further complicating the expected response.

6) We are faced with a whole range of POSSIBLE stimuluses although climate science has focused solely on CO2 unless they need a raft of excuses to escape upon.. So developing a COMPOSITE stimulus for this system is as daunting as analyzing the system itself..

Given those six ((and there are probably many other "guesses" at what's "in the box")), ANY scientist will tell you that it is POSITIVELY CERTAIN --- that a system composed of those elements is NOT REQUIRED to have a response that looks, or is shaped, or correlates with, the stimulus that is forcing it.. Make that read --- Any scientist with sufficient PHYSICS or ENGINEERING skills...

To channel the IPCC --- I am 98% CERTAIN that the OBSERVED HISTORICAL TEMPERATURE record for the earth climate does NOT require a curve fitted, matching forcing function..

I imagine that soon (maybe in my lifetime) the fledgling climate scientists will acknowledge this as they realize HOW MUCH MODELING they have left "out of the box"...

I will just address this to demonstrate that you don't have a clue.

"From henceforce ye shall be knownst as Mr. Snowjob.. Particularly for your hiliarously deconvoluted vision of Fourier transforms or the relation to correlation.. (there IS a relation -- but Fourier analysis IS NOT correlation my conniving parasite)."

The Fourier transformation is exactly the coorellation equation. The Fourier coefficients are related to the coefficients of coorelation for each of the periodic terms. This should be ovbious to anyone that has reasonable familiaity with the mathematical technique. Even intuitively it become obvious. Each term, A*Sin(wt) or B*Cos(wt) represents the contribution that that term makes to the complete function.

The mathematical technique of correlation is one of the most significant techniques in mathematics and is used in every field of science where it takes on a different specific name and used different symbols. It is, though, still correlation.

When I get to a computer I will show you the exact function.

See, this is exactly what makes you such an arrogant asshole. You don't know what you are talking about because you cannot do the actual math. You say "integral" but you can't actually do integration. You use the term "correlation" but you can't actually calculate the coeeficient of correlation or do ANOVA. You use the term Fourier but cannot actually do a Fourier transform.

You haven't a clue what you are talking about. It is why I said it, because I knew you'd have a fit and demonstrate your arrogant ignorrance. It was a test... and you failed miserably.

 

[itfitzme]

I can't find a good way to present equations here.

The easiest way to see it is to use the basis sin,cos Fourier series coefficient equations and compare them to the equation for the coefficient of correlations. Keep in mind, the mean for the functions in the Fourier series are zero as they are taken as symmetrical about the x axis. The coefficient of correlation can be done in integral form with the mean taken as zero. It should quickly become apparent that, in fact, the coefficients for each term of the Fourier series is, in fact, a coefficient of correlation of the individual sin and cos terms of varying frequency to the original signal.

This should be intuitively obvious. The original signal is decomposed into a series of cosine and sine terms, each with a constant multiplier. Each, therefor, contributes some percentage to the variation of the original signal. As such, the multiplying constants are basically r^2 values.

 

[itfitzme]

....

I imagine that soon (maybe in my lifetime) the fledgling climate scientists will acknowledge this as they realize HOW MUCH MODELING they have left "out of the box"...

Here is a simple thing for you to think about, numnuts..

What does RMS mean? It is used in electrical engineering to describe the AC voltage.

What is the exact same equation in statistics? How is variance calculated?

 

[Abraham3]

I have a simplification that might help.

Look at the ToA imbalance. This tells us the rate at which the Earth is accumulating thermal energy. What happens to that energy in the short term doesn't really matter. Wherever, specifically, it is and whatever, specifically, it is doing, we know it is on this planet and we know that it will be doing us harm.

Global heat content is the only parameter that needs watching.

 

[flacaltenn]

That we won't see an appreciable difference on a 30 year scale? Both sunspots and TSI have gone through three significant cycles on that graph, of an amplitude at least as large as anything TSI will do over a millenia and they are in virtually perfect synchrony. If you think there's a break at some scale or other, show it to us.

TSI has increased 0.5 W/m^2 since 1850.

Here's an alternate response to this question...

I HAVE REPEATEDLY shown you the diff between TSI and Sunspot Number.. Here is the ACTUAL TSI numbers for the past 300 yrs or so...

Let's pause here for a second to rehash WHY the IPCC lied about the increase in TSI since the 1850s.. ((or why they even chose 1850 as a starting point))

Why do you think they did that?

They PURPOSELY lowballed the likely value of TSI rise (mean) and expanded the certainty brackets.. Even by your admission above.

What part of this are you having problems with? TSI is a REAL summary measurement of solar flux in W/m2.. It varies VERY SLOWLY over time and cannot be seen very much on a 30 yr scale --- hence the name Solar Constant. Sun SPOTS are a predictor of TSI direction and magnitude, but has NO BASELINE.. Hence 22 sun spots in 1800 will not have the TSI as 22 sun spots in 1955.

So whenever warmers want to bury the FACT that the sun has gotten PROGRESSIVELY WARMER since the min in 17XX, they always drag out a recent SHORT history of sun spot NUMBER to divert the attention from the 1.2W/m2 INCREASE in solar flux that has occurred since the Maunder Minimum... Thats the additional forcing function that the sun is exerting TODAY versus the pre-industrial age..

 

[flacaltenn]

That we won't see an appreciable difference on a 30 year scale? Both sunspots and TSI have gone through three significant cycles on that graph, of an amplitude at least as large as anything TSI will do over a millenia and they are in virtually perfect synchrony. If you think there's a break at some scale or other, show it to us.

TSI has increased 0.5 W/m^2 since 1850.

Why do you think it's been called the Solar Constant for centuries?? Because it varies slowly... NOT ON THE SCALE you depicted.. Sun spot number is a predictor of solar irradiation at anytime but it's baseline is removed and is not in W/m2. THey are not the same. TSI has increased MORE THAN a W/m2 since the last solar min in 17XX. And to put that into perspective --- the IPCC is only looking for about 1.6W/m2 to explain the whole current era warming. That's about 0.1% of the TSI number. So if variances THAT SMALL are all it takes it begs a further question...

I am intrigued by the fact that we not only consider the TSI to be a "constant", but we also ASSUME that the shape of its spectrum is ALSO invariant.. A burning furnace with all the complex pole inversions and cycling of our sun might imply that this spectral shape is also variant. This you cannot accurately measure from the surface of the earth. Because the very gases we are studying punch holes in that spectral distribution as it comes thru the atmos. They USED to climb mtns to go attempt measurements. NOW we have satellites. But we've only had spectrometers doing real time measurements up for about 15 years. Less than a complete solar cycle..

Imagine that when you convolve the incident spectral distribution with all it's complex lines and shapes that just ONE of the GHGases has a line of absorption at a place in that distribution where the sun's energy is changing.. It would modulate the GreenHouse effect. and How much would that line have to change in height or frequency? Very very little...

We don't know JACKSHIT about how this convolution would change over time..
What we DO KNOW is that we expect our "yellow" sun to go "orange" and eventually "red" before the "Game Over" sign appears. So we KNOW that the furnace spectrum is EXPECTED to vary.. We need 20 more years of SATELLITE spectrometry to look for changes.

Explain to me how a response function does not map to its forcing function one to one. What are you actually suggesting? Variable lagging? Variable sensitivity? Please explain why you think the response will be somehow nonlinear from forcing? And if that's your claim, you better have an excellent idea what's causing such effects, else you will never be able to make a case that the two are causally related.

Linear system theory.. Elemental view is you have a black box with a transfer function described by a state equation.. Let's use electrical analogies. Black box contains a resistor -- the output DOES MATCH the input for all forcing functions with a simple gain and offset. Pretty much totally correlated shapes.. That's the simple ass (wrong) CO2 climate model.

However --- you start adding components like capacitors and inductors with leading and lagging phase operators (delay, storage) and all of sudden, the output of that box looks NOTHING like the input stimulus.. You can make a FILTER or a DELAY LINE, or a radio reciever out of those elemental component models. Output BY DESIGN looks nothing like the input..

Put FEEDBACKS (positive and negative) around that black box and suddenly you can get shit to OSCILLATE or ring or compute differentials and integrals.. THAT almost guarantees incoherence between the input and the output. (even a resistor in a POSITIVE feedback will change more than gain or offset)..

Don't let the fact that I used electrical components throw you.. My daughter is 4th yr neuroscience and called me last week to complain that she has to become an electronics engineer to understand the analogies that are in her coursework.. RLC (resistor, capacitor, inductor) models and electrical feedback analogies also appear in thermo. The L and C components are just INTEGRALS and DIFFERENTIAL operators. Just like other natural phenomena. That's why Linear, Nonlinear, and Stochastic systems analysis is UNIVERSAL for all fields of study..

So I just gave you a list of the components that we KNOW are in the climate black box in my previous post.
And THEY not only have reactive components and feedback, but they also contain NON-LINEAR elements and effects. Also contains statistically driven components in the weather patterns and ocean currents and periodic shit that we know goes on..

So THE BOX WE'RE studying should NEVER HAVE BEEN EXPECTED to have an output result that HAD TO MATCH the stimulus.. Never, ever... That's Sesame Street science. You know where Big Bird sings --- "one of these things is not like the other"..

THAT'S what climate science brought us for 20 years by focusing solely on CO2 and stupid single numbers for "global averages"...
Sesame Street science expectations..

I am familiar with RLC circuits.

Sunspot number is not given in W/m^2 ?!?! Well blow me down! Who'd a thunk.

By direct measurement, the sun's forcing is a very small fraction of the forcing determined for greenhouse effects. No matter what the relationship between forcing and response might be, 1.5 W/m^2 will have more effect than will 0.07 W/m^2.

Don't know where you pulled the 0.07W/m2 gem from. I won't touch that one.. There are DOZENS of papers and studies that rate solar and natural effects as more than 40% or more of the observed warming.. And that's my position.. That climate science has PURPOSELY obscured and minimized the natural forcings and greatly EXAGERRATED the role of CO2 in the climate system.. I'll even give you the 1.2W/m2 that physics says would result from a doubling from 250 to 500ppm. NATURAL effects would STILL be at least 25% of the observed warming. I believe the truth lies between 30% and 60% of the observed beiing due to natural changes.

I'm also curious why the response to direct solar heating should have a vastly more complex response correlation than longwave trapping and reradiation by greenhouse gases distributed throughout the atmosphere. For that matter, what is the logic behind rejecting AGW - whose components are determinant, whose forcing amplitude is sufficient and whose apparent response is relatively linear and instead fixating on a source that, by measure, has inadequate power to do that job and works through some complex and variable function that you have yet to delineate or explain.

Let's be clear here.. The ONLY SOURCE of input energy to the climate box is solar flux and planet rotational and dynamic energy. Everything else is "in the box" INCLUDING the insulating effect of CO2. CO2 is merely one variable in the box that affects the COOLING RATE of the planet.. It does not EXCITE or act as an input.. So there is a subtle difference in modeling the two.. They are in similiar units (W/m2) of power -- but CO2 is merely a change in one variable coefficient whilst a change in INPUT STIMULUS affects MANY more aspects of the climate system than backradiation does. INCIDENT solar flux transits the GH window differently than the long wave acts on the atmos. YOU COULD model the atmos as a secondary input source of power -- by giving the back radiation a path to the input thru feedback. That's the beauty of using REAL physics tools on this problem.. If you did that, you'd get the state variable effects of the backradiation on convection and ocean storage and the like.. So there is really NO distinction in the forcing functions of Solar Flux and back radiation except HOW you draw the "black box"...

Your comments regarding complex effects require a signal component seriously lacking on the time scale of interest here: frequency. Both TSI and the Earth's average temperature over the last 150 years (like any time-variant signal) could be FFT-ed and produce some spectral components, but the amplitude of any of them would be insignificant in comparison to heat content's simple non-oscillatory rise over time. Thus the consequence of a filter in your circuit - one for whose creation you've yet to even suggest a mechanism - would have almost no discernible effect over the time scale of interest.

I've actually seen the FFT of the temp. record and contrary to your gut feeling, periodic shit is blantantly obvious.. You WILL SEE 60 and 22 and 1000 yr peaks pop right out of the frequency domain.. Clearly present and visible.. HOWEVER...
I've just told you that I have no reason to believe that any ad hoc SYNTHESIS of AMO/PDO/AO/TSI would need to look like the temperature curve back in the time domain, -- I believe that warmers and skeptics alike have wasted a lot of time expecting to produce some magic curve fitting grail out of this between the inputs and the temp. curve output..

And its completely FALSE that "I've yet to even suggest a mechanism" for the elements in my system box.. Above -- I gave you a list of 6 (there's more of course if you paid me to find them) complex features that are ACKNOWLEDGED to be pieces of the climate model.. These include storage, feedback, non-linear elements, delays, etc.. KNOWING that these exist in the climate model is where I can express COMPLETE CONFIDENCE that the output is NOT EXPECTED to curve fit the stimulus..

Perhaps, however, you're on to the cause of the apparent long cycle (~60 years) in the PDO that caused the 1941-1979 hiatus and the current one as well; when more of the sun's trapped heat gets sequestered in the deep ocean. But, that's an oscillation. The Earth's growing heat content, at least on the scale of the Industrial Revolution, is not oscillatory. It's just growing.

GHGs in the Earth's atmosphere (considered in a steady state) maintain it's temperature approximately 33C (59F) higher than it would be without them. Why you should go to such lengths to reject the idea that additional GHGs (a 40% increase in CO2) could have the effect observed eludes me completely. But, carry on. Thinking hard - and learning from it - is good for our health.

Of course the PDO is part of it.. But not in isolation. In fact, if PDO was a perfect oscillation, and AMO another perfect oscillation of another freq. and a with a couple others, you could synthesize an INFINITE number of more complex waveforms. With just 2 orthogonal sine functions of the right freq. -- you can get a close approx to a ramp.. With 3 or 4 --- maybe an occasional hockey stick.. Because when you use the stupid "global average of everything" approach to study what's in the climate box --- that curve is gonna have a compound influence from all those periodic functions that hardly ever repeats for MILLENIUMS.. Because of the random phase between all of these cyclic events and the fact that they are NOT cleanly periodic.

For the umpteenth time -- I gave you the 1.2DegC result from a CO2 doubling.. Tho I doubt that we would actually see a number that high due to stabilizing feedback effects. I'm not denying much.. Just trying to get Big Bird out of science class. And WITH a 1.2degC rise over MORE than a century ---- you don't get ANY traction with the media or the public. It becomes an interesting factoid ---- NOT a planetary emergency..

That my bud is why we are butting heads..

 

[Abraham3]

Butt, butt..... butt...

When I said you had not proposed any mechanism, I was talking about a physical mechanism that would produce the behavior you suggest exists.

And I admitted there is oscillation in the temperature record that would produce fundamental frequencies, but said their amplitude would be inadequate to produce the long term pattern of heating we have observed.

I got 0.07 W/m^2 increase in TSI from what appears to be the most thorough record of TSI available. Again, if you have other data, please post it.

I am aware that CO2 is not an energy source. It is a radiative forcing factor with significant influence in the creation of the ToA imbalance.

I again suggest that if we determine and monitor global heat content rather than temperature, all these nonlinear relationships drop away. It will simply be the integration of the ToA imbalance over time. No more complexity.