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

[itfitzme]

There's a graphical example to help you visualize the actual addition of Fourier components to make a square wave approx.. Nothing to do with correlation actually.. EVERY data vector has a Fourier component synthesis.

Yeah, so, like I said, I did that on my TI-89. I did it in discrete format, correlating the sine and cosine functions to a square wave. The Fourier constants are correlating factors of the set of sine and cosine functions.

If A*B = C*B then A = C. It is really that simple.

And if you had half a brain, as you claim you do, you should have no problem determining the components that are equivalent between the Fourier transform and the correlation equation. Heck, I did the hard part for you, I presented the correlation equation in integral form.

 

[flacaltenn]

So, what is your point?

You are the one that had a hissy fit when I pointed out that the Fourier transform is simply correlation.

Now you have changed your mind?

Yeah, sure, you find that equation in that form anywhere....

But it's not.. It LOOKS like a correlation because it's the integral of vector product. There are hundred of definitions in physics that look "similiar".. It the PURPOSE of the functions that matter and the prior constraints on symmetry, range, and basis function that make them all different.

Correlation and Convolution are ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME.. Looks almost the same, computes almost the same. Tell me grasshopper --- what is the difference there?

It doesn't just "look like" correlation, it is correlation.

How hard is this to grasp for you? Each cosine and sine term, at integer frequencies, is correlated to original signal, yielding a multiplying factor.

It "look like" because it is. This is how math works. If A=B and B=C then A=B.

And the actual point, the one that Abraham has made repeatedly, is that just because we can come up with a series of functions that, when added together, create the same result as the original function, doesn't mean anything.

We can come up with all sorts of sets of equations that, when correlated to the original signal and added together with the appropriate multiplying constant, duplicate the original signal. We can do it with square waves, triangle waves, sine and cosines. We can even do it with a set of sinc functions that are both shifted in time and are multiples of the fundamental frequency. None of it means anything.

All you are saying, with your ""Fourier combinations of periodic functions causing ramps" is that we can come up with all sorts of imaginary sets of functions that duplicate the original signal.

The problem is one of reality getting in the way. In reality, there isn't some other set of functions that correlate and add up to the signal in question, the temperature rise.

What is that in your Avi? Didn't you find JUST ONE variable that LOOKS like the temperature rise and ASSUMED you solved the problem?

Your problem is now that all your excuses for the departure were never PART of your "correlation".. Things like the ocean and the sun and arctic oscillations.. You have the Sesame Street version of what I'm telling you here.. That including all that shit can still make a ramp come out of the box..

NOT ONE variable.. ONE variable does not a climate model make...

 

[itfitzme]

Oh, you know what correlates better, to the global mean temperature, then an infinite series of sin and cosine functions?

CO2. Instead of having to find some infinite series of cosine and sine functions, all that is needed is C02, to account for some 76% of the variability in global mean temperature.

Isn't that amazing......

 

[flacaltenn]

There's a graphical example to help you visualize the actual addition of Fourier components to make a square wave approx.. Nothing to do with correlation actually.. EVERY data vector has a Fourier component synthesis.

Yeah, so, like I said, I did that on my TI-89. I did it in discrete format, correlating the sine and cosine functions to a square wave. The Fourier constants are correlating factors of the set of sine and cosine functions.

If A*B = C*B then A = C. It is really that simple.

And if you had half a brain, as you claim you do, you should have no problem determining the components that are equivalent between the Fourier transform and the correlation equation. Heck, I did the hard part for you, I presented the correlation equation in integral form.

I USE half a brain when I'm attempting to communicate with you.. Listen Carefully Grasshopper -- every word is true..

The SPECIAL form of a Cosine Transform LOOKS like a correlation.. The purpose of the GENERAL FOURIER transform is to produce an accurate and REVERSIBLE representation of a data vector in frequency space. When you SQUARE THE NUMERATOR in an r2 calculation, you REMOVE the hope of ever being able to reverse that transform from a freq space back to a temporal space (without a shitload of assumptions about the data under test)..

The output from a full Fourier calculation is a complex pair of numbers being:

a + bi (where i is the imaginary operator representing the sqrt of -1) The quantities a and b represent two orthogonal vectors on a 2D graph which are capable of showing BOTH THE MAGNITUDE and THE PHASE of the resultant vectors a and b.

a and b are orthogonal (90 deg to each other on that graph) because the sine and cosine included in the Fourier transform are orthogonal functions. You cannot get there WITHOUT BOTH OF THEM... That's what makes a Fourier transform NOT a simple r2 calculation..

Best you can say is that the SPECIAL CASE of Cosine Transforms LOOK LIKE the math for a correlation.. But STILL not exactly the same because of assumptions on range, symmetry and other considerations..

 

[flacaltenn]

Oh, you know what correlates better, to the global mean temperature, then an infinite series of sin and cosine functions?

CO2. Instead of having to find some infinite series of cosine and sine functions, all that is needed is C02, to account for some 76% of the variability in global mean temperature.

Isn't that amazing......

Nope... What's amazing is how much of the climate model you had to ignore to make that silly statement..

 

[flacaltenn]

Waveform synthesis.. Take two things that look NOTHING LIKE the desired function and combine them..

Voila --- a different shape.. Ain't THAT amazing??
Go ahead --- add a spritz of CO2 --- be my guest...

 

[itfitzme]

So, here is the full TSI reconstruction, available online with data download. This is the original source, as far as I can tell.

LISIRD - Historical Total Solar Irradiance



Of course, we have to trust the good folks at the University of Colorado in the work that they have done in calibrating historical proxy data to satellite data.

The historical data goes through 2012. For 2013, just the SORCE data is available for download at

LISIRD - SORCE Total Solar Irradiance



That is as complete as I can find. Unfortunately, according to the webpage;

"The TIM is currently not collecting solar measurements.
The TIM, along with all other SORCE instruments, has been powered off since a battery cell failure on 30 July 2013. "

So, until someone finds some other data, we are shit out of luck there.

Of course, if you don't like "proxy" data or "massaged" data, you are just entirely shit out of luck and will have to accept that you don't know anything. You will just have to leave the rest up to those liberal scientists.

 

[flacaltenn]

Damn batteries.. Next time use a small nuclear battery..

It's not the ONLY solar observatory up collecting TSI.. I think Japan has more than one..

 

[itfitzme]

Damn batteries.. Next time use a small nuclear battery..

It's not the ONLY solar observatory up collecting TSI.. I think Japan has more than one..

JMA | Climate Statistics | Historic Monthly Values

Monthly mean global solar radiation (MJ/m2)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2013 3.8 7.0 9.9 15.2 14.4 19.4 20.4 12.7 11.8 11.4 ] 　 　 12.7 ]

Careful when adding the data to the Colorado set. I'm not sure that is a satellite. Might be just a station.

 

[itfitzme]

That done, the next step is to get the temperature data.

"Google could not connect to data.giss.nasa.gov"

Well, that would be because of the government shutdown.

This kind of sucks.

Freedom includes the freedom to make informed decisions. Informed decisions requires information. The US Federal Government is our single greatest source of information and data. So, freedom costs money and if we are not willing to pay for it, we don't get to be free and make informed decision.

F'in congressional repubs.....

 

[flacaltenn]

Damn batteries.. Next time use a small nuclear battery..

It's not the ONLY solar observatory up collecting TSI.. I think Japan has more than one..

JMA | Climate Statistics | Historic Monthly Values

Monthly mean global solar radiation (MJ/m2)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2013 3.8 7.0 9.9 15.2 14.4 19.4 20.4 12.7 11.8 11.4 ] 　 　 12.7 ]

Careful when adding the data to the Colorado set. I'm not sure that is a satellite. Might be just a station.

It's energy -- not power. Sum total of Joules for the month.. Takes in effects of clouds and weather. More useful for solar panel modeling than climate.. Speaking solar panels --- look at that variance in energy.. Dayam -- gonna be cold and dark in Jan and Feb for the Green Weenies....

 

[Abraham3]

Let's stop insulting each other.

 

[flacaltenn]

Let's stop insulting each other.

Did you just have a brush with death? Or are you stalking me?
Or is this a genuine proposal for a better ---- yet --- less fun USMB???

 

[bripat9643]

Let's stop insulting each other.

Did you just have a brush with death? Or are you stalking me?
Or is this a genuine proposal for a better ---- yet --- less fun USMB???

Abraham has been a gentleman in this debate. I will give him that. PMS and idiotme, on the other hand, deserve to get blasted with both barrels.

 

[flacaltenn]

Let's stop insulting each other.

Did you just have a brush with death? Or are you stalking me?
Or is this a genuine proposal for a better ---- yet --- less fun USMB???

Abraham has been a gentleman in this debate. I will give him that. PMS and idiotme, on the other hand, deserve to get blasted with both barrels.

Absolutely agree. I fear we've been a bad influence on Abraham..
I'll take any valid gentlemans agreement with him on this forum about manners.

Couldn't do that on the politics forum tho...

 

[Abraham3]

Every day's a brush with death. And a plunge into life. But to get back to the topic.

AGW is real.

 

[bripat9643]

every day's a brush with death. And a plunge into life. But to get back to the topic.

Agw is real.

not!

 

[flacaltenn]

Abraham..

Something for you to ponder.. Do we want REAL Climate Models? Or just attempt to prove ad hoc a theory about CO2 being the principle driver of the system?

The uncontestable evidence is that the climate black box is currently oscillating or extremely unstable. We have not one or two ---- but three or four ice ages in our recent history.. ALL without any reliance on man-made CO2 and generally acknowledged to be driven by the "small trivial" forces that you say --- aren't important. A REAL climate model would help us understand the bigger picture of how it works and where we're going.

A system that can oscillate like that and bring us in and out 4 ice ages in 800,000 yrs is NEVER gonna be explained by focusing on CO2. NONE of the current rinky dink models can approach that level of understanding the climate as a whole. The fact that we are sitting at relative "climate optimum" in our history on the earth is pure serendipity. Until we can model that black box to point of UNDERSTANDING why we are sitting on an edge overlooking another ice age from historical evidence --- I'm not comfortable.

You shouldn't be so smug either..

This observation about historical observation also PROVES my point about the forcing functions looking nothing like response output from the system..

Now, that is laughable, that you think you are capable of creating a real climate model.

Wait, I understood that you don't like computer models.

How much abuse did I take on this thread for trying to discuss more accurate modeling in Climate Science based on the tools of various types of System's Theory? And not one poster outside of ItFitzMe even bothered to try to discuss??

New study from Ga Tech posted by Matthew under "Stadium Waves"........

Bottom line first.

'Stadium waves' could explain lull in global warming | e! Science News

Previous work done by Wyatt on the 'wave' shows the models fail to capture the stadium-wave signal. That this signal is not seen in climate model simulations may partially explain the models' inability to simulate the current stagnation in global surface temperatures.

"Current climate models are overly damped and deterministic, focusing on the impacts of external forcing rather than simulating the natural internal variability associated with nonlinear interactions of the coupled atmosphere-ocean system," Curry said.

Holy cow BatBoy.. Damped deterministic system responses to external forcings. Nonlinear interactions... Any of that ring a bell?

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,' in which positive and negative feedbacks interact 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.

The new study analyzed indices derived from atmospheric, oceanic and sea ice data since 1900. The linear trend was removed from all indices to focus only the multi-decadal component of natural variability. A multivariate statistical technique called Multi-channel Singular Spectrum Analysis (MSSA) was used to identify patterns of variability shared by all indices analyzed, which characterizes the 'stadium wave.' The removal of the long-term trend from the data effectively removes the response from long term climate forcing such as anthropogenic greenhouse gases.


The stadium wave periodically enhances or dampens the trend of long-term rising temperatures, which may explain the recent hiatus in rising global surface temperatures.

"The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s," said Wyatt, an independent scientist after having earned her Ph.D. from the University of Colorado in 2012.

Curry added, "This prediction is in contrast to the recently released IPCC AR5 Report that
projects an imminent resumption of the warming, likely to be in the range of a 0.3 to 0.7 degree Celsius rise in global mean surface temperature from 2016 to 2035." Curry is the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

wave synthesis producing long-lasting DELAYED climate changes??

spectral analysis to identify periodicities?

oscillatory functions and damped responses caused by combos of positive and negative feedback?

the diff between external forcing functions and internal linear and non-linear functions?


Sounds like maybe Curry et al might have listening eh???
Or MAYBE ---- that's just what the science should be saying and doing..

Anyone want to continue discussing OTHER aspects of climate modeling that have been neglected? Or ya just want to badger, insult and harasss???

 

[flacaltenn]

Am I on topic NOW Abraham???

 

[itfitzme]

Abraham..

Something for you to ponder.. Do we want REAL Climate Models? Or just attempt to prove ad hoc a theory about CO2 being the principle driver of the system?

The uncontestable evidence is that the climate black box is currently oscillating or extremely unstable. We have not one or two ---- but three or four ice ages in our recent history.. ALL without any reliance on man-made CO2 and generally acknowledged to be driven by the "small trivial" forces that you say --- aren't important. A REAL climate model would help us understand the bigger picture of how it works and where we're going.

A system that can oscillate like that and bring us in and out 4 ice ages in 800,000 yrs is NEVER gonna be explained by focusing on CO2. NONE of the current rinky dink models can approach that level of understanding the climate as a whole. The fact that we are sitting at relative "climate optimum" in our history on the earth is pure serendipity. Until we can model that black box to point of UNDERSTANDING why we are sitting on an edge overlooking another ice age from historical evidence --- I'm not comfortable.

You shouldn't be so smug either..

This observation about historical observation also PROVES my point about the forcing functions looking nothing like response output from the system..

Now, that is laughable, that you think you are capable of creating a real climate model.

Wait, I understood that you don't like computer models.

How much abuse did I take on this thread for trying to discuss more accurate modeling in Climate Science based on the tools of various types of System's Theory? And not one poster outside of ItFitzMe even bothered to try to discuss??

New study from Ga Tech posted by Matthew under "Stadium Waves"........

Bottom line first.

'Stadium waves' could explain lull in global warming | e! Science News

Previous work done by Wyatt on the 'wave' shows the models fail to capture the stadium-wave signal. That this signal is not seen in climate model simulations may partially explain the models' inability to simulate the current stagnation in global surface temperatures.

"Current climate models are overly damped and deterministic, focusing on the impacts of external forcing rather than simulating the natural internal variability associated with nonlinear interactions of the coupled atmosphere-ocean system," Curry said.

Holy cow BatBoy.. Damped deterministic system responses to external forcings. Nonlinear interactions... Any of that ring a bell?

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,' in which positive and negative feedbacks interact 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.

The new study analyzed indices derived from atmospheric, oceanic and sea ice data since 1900. The linear trend was removed from all indices to focus only the multi-decadal component of natural variability. A multivariate statistical technique called Multi-channel Singular Spectrum Analysis (MSSA) was used to identify patterns of variability shared by all indices analyzed, which characterizes the 'stadium wave.' The removal of the long-term trend from the data effectively removes the response from long term climate forcing such as anthropogenic greenhouse gases.


The stadium wave periodically enhances or dampens the trend of long-term rising temperatures, which may explain the recent hiatus in rising global surface temperatures.

"The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s," said Wyatt, an independent scientist after having earned her Ph.D. from the University of Colorado in 2012.

Curry added, "This prediction is in contrast to the recently released IPCC AR5 Report that
projects an imminent resumption of the warming, likely to be in the range of a 0.3 to 0.7 degree Celsius rise in global mean surface temperature from 2016 to 2035." Curry is the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

wave synthesis producing long-lasting DELAYED climate changes??

spectral analysis to identify periodicities?

oscillatory functions and damped responses caused by combos of positive and negative feedback?

the diff between external forcing functions and internal linear and non-linear functions?


Sounds like maybe Curry et al might have listening eh???
Or MAYBE ---- that's just what the science should be saying and doing..

Anyone want to continue discussing OTHER aspects of climate modeling that have been neglected? Or ya just want to badger, insult and harasss???

No one doubts that there are cyclical processes in the climate that account for the obvious variability upon which increasing temperatures are overlain. This is the whole point that is repeatedly made everytime some denier cherry picks a recent and "short lived" downward trend. The fact that there are cyclical processes at work is the whole point of the current insignificant haiatus the ocean cycle is currently in the ocean warming/atmospheric stable trend.

Unfortunately, cycles never account for long term increases. They simply mask the steady upward trend as the negative phase of the cycle offsets that increase. And the problematic part of a cycle is that what one half takes away, the other half gives back.

At this point we can gauge how much that will be and generally when we might expect it. Unfortunately, as nature is a bit messy, being able to say with precision just isn't possible. True sine waves seldom occur in nature. There is, rather, huge "phase noise", where the peaks and valleys are lengthened and foreshortened considerably. It really is this timing issue that makes precise prediction impossible. We know what the total energy is in the system. That can be easily counted. We can count TSI. We can count molecules of CO2.

What we cannot easily count is the timing of the heat moving in waves as it attempts to redistribute itself in a system that is constantly driven by ever changing solar and tidal forces.

The Earth us tilted on its axis, constantly changing the balance of heating, both as the Earth orbits the sun and the Earth revolves on it's axis. As well, the moon orbits the Earth, constantly moving the tide. All this changes where the heat is and where it wants to go. All that thermal energy has momentum and as it moves to cooler locations, it overshoots.

The placement of the continents and oceans are not nicely spaced. The Southpole has a huge lamd mass while the North has none. All of this drives and effects the timing of ocean and atmoshperic cycles is a way that is complex enough to be, for all practical purposes, random in timing.

If the current timing does extend the trough into the 1930's, it won't change the accumulation of heat. It will simply change the timing of when that energy is expressed as atmospheric temperature. And when the cycle gets around to dumping it into the atmosphere, it will do so with a vengance. For every year that temps don't rise, there will be an offsetting year when temps rise at twice the rate. And, we can guarantee that, as that heat has momentum, as it has undershot the mean, it will overshoot the mean as ocean temps drop below the average and the atmosphere overshoots.

Cycles that offset the steady increase are not good on two counts. The first is that rapid increase in atmospheric temps and subsequent overshoot. Crops and species do not adapt all that quickly. The second is the psychological effect that the lull has on people who feel is isn't all that bad.

I am npt sure you are fully grasping the consequences of what these cycles mean.