Home/BlogExecutive Summary
A new paper by Santer et al. in Journal of Climate shows that observed trends during 1988-2019 in sea surface temperature [SST], tropospheric temperature [TLT and TMT], and total tropospheric water vapor [TWV] are generally inconsistent, by varying amounts, with climate model trends over the same period. The study uses ratios between observed trends in these variables to explore how well the ratios match model expectations, with the presumption that the models provide “truth” in such comparisons. Special emphasis is placed on the inconsistency between TWV moistening rates and the satellite tropospheric temperature warming rates: the total water vapor has risen faster than one would expect for the weak rate of satellite-observed tropospheric warming (but both are still less than the average climate model trends in either CMIP5 or CMIP6).
While the paper itself does not single out the tropospheric temperatures as being in error, widespread reporting of the paper used the same biased headline, for instance this from DailyMail.com: “Satellites may have been underestimating the planet’s warming for decades”. The reporting largely ignored the bulk of what was in the paper, which was much less critical of the satellite temperature trends, and which should have been more newsworthy. For example: (1) SST warming is shown in the paper to be well below climate model expectations from both CMIP5 and CMIP6, which one might expect could have been a major conclusion; (2) the possibility that the satellite-based TWV is rising too rapidly (admitted in the paper, and addressed below), and especially (3) the possibility that TWV is not a good proxy anyway for mid- and upper-tropospheric warming (discussed below).
As others have shown, free-tropospheric vapor (not well captured by TWV) would be the proper proxy for free-tropospheric warming, and the fact that climate models maintain constant relative humidity with altitude during warming is not based upon basic physical processes (as the authors imply), but instead upon arbitrary moistening assumptions implicit in model convective parameterizations. Observational evidence is shown that free-tropospheric humidity does not increase with tropospheric temperature as much as in the GFDL climate model. Thus, weak tropospheric warming measured by satellites could be evidence of weak water vapor feedback in the free troposphere, which in turn could explain the weaker than (model) expected surface warming. A potential reason for a high bias in TWV trends is also addressed, which is consistent with the other variables’ trend behavior.
Evidence Presented in Santer et al. (2021)
I’ve been asked by several people to comment on a new paper in Journal of Climate by Santer et al. (Using Climate Model Simulations to Constrain Observations) that has as one of its conclusions the possibility that satellite-based warming estimates of tropospheric temperature might be too low. Based upon my initial examination of the paper, I conclude that there is nothing new in the paper that would cast doubt on the modest nature of tropospheric warming trends from satellites — unless one believes climate models as proof, in which case we don’t need observations anyway.
The new study focuses on the period 1988-2019 so that total integrated water vapor retrievals over the ocean from the SSM/I and SSMIS satellite-based instruments can be used. Recent surface and tropospheric warming has indeed been accompanied by increasing water vapor in the troposphere, and the quantitative relationship between temperature and vapor is used by the authors as a guide to help determine whether the tropospheric warming rates from satellites have been unrealistically low.
Most of the pertinent conclusions in the new paper come from their Fig. 9, which I have annotated for clarity in Fig. 1, below.
Fig. 1. Adapted from Santer et al. (2021), comparison plots of tropical trends (1988-2019) in total integrated water vapor, sea surface temperature, and tropospheric temperature, in climate models versus observations. Note in (A) and (D) the sea surface temperature trends are well below the average model trends, which curiously was not part of the media-reported results. These plots show that in all four of the properties chosen for analysis (SST, TLT, TMT, and TWV) the observed trends are below the average climate model trends (the latter of which determine global policy responses to anthropogenic GHG emissions). The fact the observations fall off of the model-based regression lines is (as discussed below) due to some combination of errors in the observations and errors in the climate model assumptions.
The Problem with Using Integrated Water Vapor Increases as a Proxy for Tropospheric Warming
A central conclusion of the paper is that total integrated water vapor has been rising more rapidly than SST trends suggest, while tropospheric temperature has been rising less rapidly (assuming the models are correct that SST warming should be significantly amplified in the troposphere). This pushes the observations away from the climate model-based regression lines in Fig. 1a, 1b, and 1b.
The trouble with using TWV moistening as a proxy for tropospheric warming is that while TWV is indeed strongly coupled to SST warming, how well it is coupled to free-tropospheric (above the boundary layer) warming in nature is very uncertain. TWV is dominated by boundary layer water vapor, while it is mid- to upper-tropospheric warming (and thus in the TMT satellite measurements) which is strongly related to how much the humidity increases at these high altitudes (Po-Chedley et al., 2018).
This high-altitude region is not well represented in TWV retrievals. Satellite based retrievals of TWV use the relatively weak water vapor line near 22 GHz, and so are mainly sensitive to the water vapor in the lowest layer of the atmosphere.
Furthermore, these retrievals are dependent upon an assumptions regarding the profile shape of water vapor in the atmosphere. If global warming is accompanied by a preferential moistening of the lower troposphere (due to increased surface evaporation) and a thickening of the moist boundary layer, the exceedingly important free-tropospheric humidity increase might not be as strong as is assumed in these retrievals, which are based upon regional profile differences over different sea surface temperature regimes.
As shown by Spencer & Braswell (1997) and others, the ability of the climate system to cool to outer space is strongly dependent upon humidity changes in the upper troposphere during warming (see Fig. 2). The upper troposphere has very low levels of water vapor in both relative and absolute terms, yet these low amounts of vapor in the upper 75% of the troposphere have a dominating control on cooling to outer space.
Fig. 2. Adapted from Spencer & Braswell, 1997: The rate of humidity increases in the free troposphere (above the boundary layer) with long-term surface warming can dominate water vapor feedback, and thus free-tropospheric warming (e.g. from satellite-based TMT), as well as surface warming. The precipitation processes which govern the humidity in this region (and especially how they change with warming) are very uncertain and only crudely handled in climate models.
As indicated in Fig. 2, water vapor in the lowest levels of the troposphere is largely controlled by surface evaporation. If the surface warms, increasing evaporation moistens the boundary layer, and constant relative humidity is a pretty good rule of thumb there. But in the mid- and upper- troposphere, detrained air from precipitation systems largely determines humidity. The fraction of condensed water vapor that is removed by precipitation determines how much is left over to moisten the environment. The free-tropospheric air sinking in clear air even thousands of km away from any precipitation systems had its humidity determined when that air ascended in those precipitation systems, days to weeks before. As demonstrated by Renno, Emanuel, and Stone (1994) with a model containing an explicit atmospheric hydrologic cycle, precipitation efficiency determines whether the climate is cool or warm, through its control on the main greenhouse gas, water vapor.
Importantly, we do not know how precipitation efficiency changes with warming, therefore we don’t know how strong water vapor feedback is in the real climate system. We know that tropical rain systems are more efficient than higher latitude systems (as many of us know anecdotally from visiting the tropics, where even shallow clouds can produce torrential rainfall). It is entirely reasonable to expect that global warming will be accompanied by an increase in precipitation efficiency, and recent research is starting to support this view (e.g. Lutsko and Cronin, 2018). This would mean that free-tropospheric absolute (specific) humidity might not increase as much as climate models assume, leading to less surface warming (as is observed) and less tropospheric amplification of surface warming (as is observed).
Because climate models do not yet include the precipitation microphysics governing precipitation efficiency changes with warming, the models’ behavior regarding temperature versus humidity in the free troposphere should not be used as “truth” when evaluating observations.
While climate models tend to maintain constant relative humidity throughout the troposphere during warming, thus causing strong positive water vapor feedback (e.g. Soden and Held, 2006) and so resulting in strong surface warming and even stronger tropospheric warming, there are difference between models in this respect. In the CMIP5 models analyzed by Po-Chedley et al. (2018, their Fig. 1a) there is a factor of 3 variation in the lapse rate feedback across models, which is a direct measure of how much tropospheric amplification there is of surface warming (the so-called “hotspot”). That amplification is, in turn, directly related (they get r = -0.85) to how much extra water vapor is detrained into the free troposphere (also in their Fig. 1a).
What Happens To Free Tropospheric Humidity in the Real World?
In the real world, it is not clear that free-tropospheric water vapor maintains constant relative humidity with warming (which would result in strong surface warming, and even stronger tropospheric warming). We do not have good long-term measurements of free-tropospheric water vapor changes on a global basis.
Some researchers have argued that seasonal and regional relationships can be used to deduce water vapor feedback, but this seems unlikely. How the whole system changes with warming over time is not so certain.
For example, if we use satellite measurements near 183 GHz (e.g. available from the NOAA AMSU-B instruments since late 1998), which are very sensitive to upper tropospheric vapor, we find in the tropics that tropospheric temperature and humidity changes over time appear to be quite different in satellite observations versus the GFDL climate model (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3. Zonal averages of gridpoint regression coefficients between monthly anomalies in 183.3 GHz TB and TMT during 2005-2015 in observations (blue) and in two GFDL climate models (red and orange), indicating precipitation systems in the real world dry out the free troposphere with warming more than occurs in climate models, potentially reducing positive water vapor feedback and thus global warming.
More details regarding the results in Fig. 3. can be found here.
Possible Biases in Satellite-Retrieved Water Vapor Trends
While satellite retrievals of TWV are known to be quite accurate when compared to radiosondes, subtle changes in the vertical profile of water vapor during global warming can potentially cause biases in the TWV trends. The Santer et al. (2021) study mentions the possibility that the total vertically-integrated atmospheric water vapor trends provided by satellites since mid-1987 might be too high, but does not address any reasons why.
This is an issue I have been concerned about for many years because the TWV trend since 1988 (only retrievable over the ocean) has been rising faster than we would expect based upon sea surface temperature (SST) warming trends combined with the assumption of constant relative humidity throughout the depth of the troposphere (see Fig. 1a, 1b, 1c above).
How might such a retrieval bias occur? Retrieved TWV is proportional to warming of a passive microwave Tb near the weak 22.235 GHz water vapor absorption line over the radiometrically-cold (reflective) ocean surface. As such, it depends upon the temperature at which the water vapor is emitting microwave radiation.
TWV retrieval depends upon assumed shapes of the vertical profile of water vapor in the troposphere, that is, what altitudes and thus what temperatures the water vapor is emitting at. These assumed vertical profile shapes are based upon radiosonde (weather balloon) data from different regions and different seasons having different underlying sea surface temperatures. But these regionally- and seasonally-based shape variations might not reflect shape changes during warming. If the vast majority of the moistening with long-term warming occurs in the boundary layer (see Fig. 2 above, below 800 hPa pressure altitude), with maybe slight thickening of the boundary layer, but the upper troposphere experiences little moistening, then the retrieved TWV could be biased high because the extra water vapor is emitting microwave radiation from a lower (and thus warmer) altitude than is assumed by the retrieval. This will lead to a high bias in retrieved water vapor over time as the climate system warms and moistens. As the NASA AMSR-E Science Team leader, I asked the developer of the TWV retrieval algorithm about this possibility several years ago, but never received a response.
The New Santer at al. Study Ignores Radiosonde Evidence Supporting Our UAH Satellite Temperatures
As an aside, it is also worth noting that the new study does not even reference our 2018 results (Christy et al., 2018) showing that the most stable radiosonde datasets support the UAH satellite temperature trends.
Conclusion
The new study by Santer et al. does not provide convincing evidence that the satellite measurements of tropospheric temperature trends are unrealistically low, and the media reporting of their study in this regard was biased. Their conclusion (which they admit is equivocal) depends upon the belief in climate models for how upper tropospheric warming relates to increasing total tropospheric water vapor (TWV) amounts. Since TWV does not provide much sensitivity to upper tropospheric water vapor changes, and those changes largely determine how much tropospheric amplification of surface temperature trends will occur (e.g. the “tropical hotspot”), TWV cannot determine whether tropospheric temperature trends are realistic or not.
Furthermore, there is some evidence that the TWV trends are themselves biased high, which the study authors admit is one possible explanation for the trend relationships they have calculated.
The existing observations as presented in the Santer et al. study are largely consistent with the view that global warming is proceeding at a significantly lower rate that is predicted by the latest climate models, and that much of the disagreement between models and observations can be traced to improper assumptions in those models.
Specifically:
1) SST warming has been considerably less that the models predict, especially in the tropics
2) Tropospheric amplification of the surface warming has been weak or non-existent, suggesting weaker positive water vapor feedback in nature than in models
3) Weak water vapor feedback, in turn, helps explain weak SST warming (see [1]).
4) Recent published research (and preliminary evidence shown in Fig. 3, above) support the view that climate model water vapor feedback is too strong, and so current models should not be used to validate observations in this regard.
5) Satellite-based total water vapor trends cannot be used to infer water vapor feedback because they are probably biased high due to vertical profile assumptions and because they probably do not reflect how free-tropospheric water vapor has changed with warming, which has a large impact on water vapor feedback.
REFERENCES
Christy, J. R., R. W. Spencer, W. D. Braswell, and R. Junod, 2018: Examination of space-based bulk atmospheric temperatures used in climate research.
Intl. J. Rem. Sens., DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2018.1444293
Lutsko, N. J. and T. W. Cronin, 2018: Increase in precipitation efficiency with surface warming in radiative-convective equilibrium. J. of Adv. Model. Earth Sys., DOI:https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001482.
Po-Chedley, S., K. C. Armour, C. M. Bitz, M. D. Zelinka, B. D. Santer, and Q. Fu, 2018: Sources of intermodel spread in the lapse rate and water vapor feedbacks. J. Climate, DOI:https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0674.1.
Renno, N. O., K. A. Emanuel, and P. H. Stone, 1994: Radiative-convective model with an explicit hydrologic cycle: 1. Formulation and sensitivity to model parameters, J. Geophys. Res. – Atmos., DOI:https://doi.org/10.1029/94JD00020.
Santer, B. D., S. Po-Chedley, C. Mears, J. C. Fyfe, N. Gillett, Q. Fu, J. F. Painter, S. Solomon, A. K. Steiner, F. J. Wentz, M. D. Zelinka, and C.-Z. Zou, 2021: Using climate model simulations to constrain observations. J. Climate, DOI:https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-20-0768.1
Soden, B. J., and I. M. Held, 2006: An assessment of climate feedbacks in coupled ocean–atmosphere models. J. Climate, DOI:https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3799.1.
Spencer, R.W., and W.D. Braswell, 1997: How dry is the tropical free troposphere? Implications for global warming theory. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 78, 1097-1106.
I would need an advanced degree in all of this to make any assessment, but thanks for the detailed analysis. You obviously put a lot of time into it.
So once again, we see that bad science based on faulty assumptions continue to be promoted as evidence the data is somehow wrong because it disagrees with a programmer’s input for a desired outcome. Colour me shocked!
That wasn’t what the paper said, and Dr Spencer is crticising media reports of it.
The paper doesn’t take the models as gospel, it says if the model results are sound, then x or y.
“If model expectations of these four covariance relationships are realistic, our findings reflect either a systematic low bias in satellite tropospheric temperature trends or an overestimate of the observed atmospheric moistening signal. It is currently difficult to determine which interpretation is more credible.”
Though the full paper is not available, it’s easy enough to read the available abstract linked in Dr Spencer’s post and see this.
Also, there are different data sets out there that don’t agree with each other. Thus at least some of the data sets have biases (are inaccurate). The paper is trying to determine which ones have consistent relationships. Be nice to read the whole paper.
Questions related to subject.
Where can i find real emmisivity numbers for H2O; gas, liquid, and ice. For estimating IR emmision above cloud tops.
Same for CO2…
Relating to evaporation rates, does the climate community have a clue to the long term historical absolute pressure values.
For example what was the absolute pressure thru the ice age cycles?
I have never seen a a believable proxy…..
Regards
Roy – I encourage you to submit your analysis for publication in a well recognized peer reviewed journal. We need such critiques.
On the subject of tropospheric water vapor trends, we done some work on this, although now dated.
Gill, E.C., T.N Chase, R.A. Pielke Sr, and K. Wolter, 2013: Northern Hemisphere summer temperature and specific humidity anomalies from two reanalyses. J. Geophys. Res., 118, 1–9, DOI: 10.1002/jgrd.50635. Copyright (2010) American Geophysical Union. https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/r-341.pdf
Wang, J.-W., K. Wang, R.A. Pielke, J.C. Lin, and T. Matsui, 2008: Towards a robust test on North America warming trend and precipitable water content increase. Geophys. Res. Letts., 35, L18804, doi:10.1029/2008GL034564. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/files/2009/10/r-337.pdf
See also
https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/new-paper-that-further-documents-a-muted-atmospheric-water-vapor-trend-surface-water-vapor-pressure-and-temperature-trends-in-north-america-during-1948-2010-by-isaac-and-van-wijngaarden-2012/
We are also working on a paper assessing long term trends in reanalysis of surface air moist enthalpy (which, of course, includes both dry bulb T trends and absolute water vapor trends at that level.).
Best Regards
Roger
You might also consider (if you have not already) the thermal effects of dew, frost, ice, snow, mist, etc. on the surface and how it effects air temperatures between the surface and 1.5m. (i.e. the lower 3d, 3m layer of air)
Also the thermal effects of moisture in the air column as that requires energy to change the H2O part of that mixture and thus directly effects the air temperature.
Does the lower than predicted sea surface temperature suggests more evaporation, more energy being converted to latent heat than expected?
Wouldnt this further suggest strengthening of water cycle efficiency and very strong dampening of water vapor feedback (which probably increases with temp)?
Dr Spencer, you should do a blog post helping Stephen Koonin get his rebuttal communicated.
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Image-2852.png
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/that-obama-scientist-climate-skeptic-youve-been-hearing-about/
https://realclimatescience.com/2021/06/the-people-with-something-to-hide/
In general, I guess it can be said that the models should be based on empirical measurements. This is at least generally the case for simulations. After all, simulation itself is not a science, but it makes it possible to mirror where reality could lead.
If the simulation model does not implement empirical measurements, the fault is usually in the model and not in reality.
A CMIP5 model run in 2005 includes empirical measurements up to 2005.
Unfortunately, without a time machine it is hard for a model running in 2005 to incorporate empirical measurements from the period between 2005 and 2021 which hadn’t happened yet.
Indeed, estimating the value of future measurements was a major reason for running the model.
Thanks for this detailed explanation Roy. As an engineer (with a background in physics) I really appreciate your posting the key findings and expositions that never make it into the media. Please keep up the good work.
At last!
The answer to our prayers!
Deniers rejoice!
“The Texas Republican congressman Louie Gohmert has asked a senior US government official if changing the moon’s orbit around the Earth, or the Earth’s orbit around the sun, might be a solution for climate change.”
If only we could stop the moon rotating that would solve everything.
You are right MJ. But first you need to calculate the moment of inertia for a sphere composed of green cheese.
We might need to ask the Clangers for permission first
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clangers
I am reminded of Larry Niven’s book Lucifer’s Hammer.
https://space.nss.org/book-review-lucifers-hammer/
Two scientists are being interviewed regarding the damage to be caused by an impending comet impact.
They describe the comet as ice with lumps in it, like a hot fudge sundae.
One of then suggests “Hey, let’s hit Earth with a cubic mile of hot fudge sundae.”
They work out the consequences while the interviewer laughs heartily and then sober up when they all realise that the comet would be even worse.
Moving Earth or Moon would be hard to do, but making space sunshade could be fairly easy for congress critters to do.
But no wants the Earth to be cooler. Because we are in a 34 million year old, Ice Age.
One could do something in regards to using space environment in order to warm colder regions of Earth. But there is the cargo cult religion who are quite against any warming of Earth.
The Russians wanted to do it, and congress critter seem to like giving money to Russia- so, could pay {a relatively small amount] to the Russians to encourage them to do it.
huh? Are you ok?
An what orbit would you put a palette intended to warm the Arctic but not the tropics? What reflector area would you need? How much would it weigh? How much would it cost?
Sorry, soletta.
Sorry, that should have been a soletta.
I tried to post, and it didn’t twice. Try to make it smaller/shorter post.
Russians probably launch to a Molniya orbit
What does blog not like.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lissajous_orbit
https://tinyurl.com/y3vaxnkj
Probably from L-1
Roy’s on an intermediate axis:
https://youtu.be/-Si6iRL5Fj8
Willard: Ah, but is the Earth?
third time the charm:
A soletta. Hmm. What is a soletta:
“A magnifying device constructed in space for the purpose of amplifying the solar radiation received by the surface of Mars, in order to aid in the process of Terraforming. Put into place by the transnationals in the start of the 22nd century.”
https://tinyurl.com/y3vaxnkj
Kim Stanley Robinson, I don’t read any of his books. But I know some have to do with terraforming Mars. And costing vast amount of money- a I am against these silly ideas.
Mars is easy to terraform- but it’s so easy, one might not call it terraforming.
But I guess Kim soletta, magnifying device would at Mars L-1.
And you could put it a Earth/Sun L-1. But if want to do Russia, you might want to put it a L-1 orbit which favored north Hemisphere of Earth. The orbits in L-1 points, are called Halo orbits:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_orbit
“Although a Lagrange point is just a point in empty space, its peculiar characteristic is that it can be orbited by a Lissajous orbit or a halo orbit.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lissajous_orbit
What that would look like requires math, I don’t do such math.
So have to do the math to see how well it would it work, but it would work {it’s possible to do}.
But if using a reflector, the Russians probably use the orbit they normally use:
It’s a highly elliptical polar orbit
Or roughly it spends about 80% of time which can view Russia.
One can compare it to Geostationary orbits which are constantly over location on Earth, but since at equator, they are at low angle to polar regions. Also GEO needs zero inclination, which takes significant amount delta-v to “get to” from a high latitude launch site [Russian spaceport is 51 degree- which means lowest inclination of a rocket launch is 51 degree orbital inclination. But if go to GTO, or higher {you even go around Moon] one uses less delta-v to change the orbital inclination at the apogee.
Russians probably use the orbit they normally use:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molniya_orbit
They should get rid of the oceans. I think it is pretty clear to anyone who looked into this topic deep enough, that it is the devilish DHM (dihydrogen monooxide) that creates all the trouble. Without it, the warming due to the rising co2 would be a predictable 0.9*C per doubling, which would also be easily seen and measurable due to the muted natural variability. The dreaded runaway greenhouse, which btw is invevitable with the brightening of the sun, is also entirely due to the unlimited DHM pool. Without the oceans of the DHM gas, it would take such a large increase of co2 that it would kill everything with it’s chemistry way before it kills with the GHE. In fact, it is probably impossible for humans to raise co2 that much even if we tried out best.
“The dreaded runaway greenhouse, which btw is invevitable with the brightening of the sun…”
I think we have a few hundred million years before we need to worry about that.
Well, that was an educated guess. So I looked it up.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/01/earth-wont-die-soon-thought
Yeah, assuming that the earth-sund distance doesn’t change and the sun brightens very steady and gradually… k, those are quite safe assumptions. But that’s beyond the point, my point was that the earth is in a very necessarily narrow insolation range, breaking those boundaries would lead to a runaway climate change, either freeze-over or or runaway greenhouse (or moist greenhouse at first). The upper limit, beyond which the mghe will become possible is a mere percents away from what we have now, and mind you that simply due to eccentricity the insolation varies by+-3.5% over the course of the year. All that thanks to the dihydrogen monooxide. Not co2, not the sun on its own. perhaps, the safest option is to begin to get rid of the DHMO right now, while we still have a window pf opportunity. Jettison it into space or something.
I think that steam powered rockets could become a thing : )
It is absurd to think models would impact data (tail wags dog), but I struggle to understand how thermometer data (eg boat engine corrections) are anything but an example of data bias from model expectations (eg media records of coeval glacial expansion/ recession during raw data that was modified). Fingers crossed UAH and other satellite data maintains credibility to the general public that vote. Worst thing to do is stop sharing truth, this is what European oil companies are doing and the results may be catastrophic. Thanks for providing explanation others can lean on in conversations.
Neither the data nor the models are perfect, but there is information to be considered and that’s what the paper does apparently, without concluding anything.
If the concern is related to knowing the exact amount of water vapor at different altitudes, is there a way to directly measure water vapor? Could balloons be used in some way with reliable instrumentation? The cost should not be a big issue since this question has become so important.
An electronic psychrometer measures water vapour by measuring IR abs-opt-tion.
Unfortunately they cost 30 each, a bit too dear to add one to each radiosonde.
Santer et. al. again. He and Michael Mann are pillars of science.
Dr. Roy
your figure 2 widens and is marked precipitation processes dominate. To me this means clouds dominate. How does this upwelling dOLR/dRH compare to dSWRefl, say in useful units like watts, since cloud albedo can be as high as 0.9. Im pretty sure your answer will be read the 1997 paper, so am thanking you in advance..
I would be interested to know how much any increased water vapor is present, if any, any what thermal energy was needed to release it.
That would directly impact air temperatures at the point of release and also effect the thermal capacity of the air containing it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy_of_vaporization
I know what it is. What I want to know is how much of the Sun’s energy budget goes towards it and how is the subsequent release of it (on condensation or freezing) dealt with in the temperature measurements.
Take a look at Earth’s energy budget here.
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/qj.2704
Earth’s surface receives about 162W/m^2 from sunlight and 340W/m^2 from downwelling radiation, 502W/m^2.
The surface emits 502 W/m^ of which 80W/m^2 is latent heat of vapourisation from evaporation and transpiration.
And how does that (evaporation/condensation and freezing/melting) effect air temperatures TOA to surface?
Oh, and sensible heat of water vapor between those points.
You should has everything you need to calculate the temperature changes.
Latent heat of vaporization is 2.3*10^6 joules/kg.
Evaporation from surface is 80W/m^2.
Specific heat of water is 4200J/kg/C
That should allow you to calculate the amount of heat leaving the surface per square metre/year and it’s effect on surface temperature.
90% of that heat is deposited in the condensation layer between 200m and 300m. The specific heat of air is 1005 J/kg/K which should allow you to calculate the warming due to normal cloud formation.
About 10% of the evaporated heat reaches the tropopause in thunderstorms. Again you should be able to calculate the warming effect.
Forgive me not doing the calculation myself, but I’ve been playing with my grandson all day and I’m knackered.
A very quick mental calculation suggests that a year’s evaporation instantly transferred to th atmosphere would require 2 million joules. It would cool the surface by 0.02C and warm 3,000 cubic metres of atmosphere by 0.3C
Over a more realistic daily rate 1/356 of the annual rate. That would be surface cooling of 0.0006C and atmospheric warming of 0.0009C.
You’ll need to check that. I never do my best work when I’m half asleep
Well as clouds, rain, hail, snow, etc. also form part of this mix I rather suspect you are underestimating the effects but….
I’m using the 80W figure for evapotranspiration averaged for the whole planetary surface.
There will be considerable vatiation. Over a desert or ice sheet it will be considerably lower. Over a rain forest it will be considerably lower.
Over a year an average square metre evaporates about 1kg of water and condenses most of it in the first 3000m of the atmosphere.
That’s 3g/day or 6000joules/day transferred from the surface to the atmosphere, much less than I’d expected.
Curses. Over a rain forest it will be considerably higher.
“As there can be two boundaries for change, solid/liquid and liquid/gas, each material has two specific latent heats:
latent heat of fusion – the amount of energy needed to freeze or melt the material at its melting point
latent heat of vaporisation – the amount of energy needed to evaporate or condense the material at its boiling point
Some typical values for specific latent heat include:
Substance Specific latent heat of fusion (kJ/kg) Specific latent heat of vaporisation (kJ/kg)
Water 334 2,260”
Fusion and vaporisation point latent heat requirements are the same if conversion happens at lower temperatures too. As in most cases in the Earth’s atmosphere they do.
“Specific heat water vapor: 1.996 kJ/kgK =0.4767 Btu(IT)/(lbm F) or kcal/(kg K)”
“Air (Sea level, dry,0 C (273.15 K)): 1.0035 J⋅g−1⋅K−1”
>>Over a year an average square metre evaporates about 1kg of water and condenses most of it in the first 3000m of the atmosphere.
actually it is 1000kg of water
What’s a factor of a 1000 between friends
Most of Earth evaporation occurs in the Tropics.
One has about 40,000 ppm of water vapor in tropics and 60% of rest of world has about 3000 ppm of water vapor.
The tropics get most of the amount of sunlight- 40% of world get more than 50% sunlight and 60% of world gets less than 50% of sunlight.
Tropics is 80% ocean. Tropics can “control it’s temperature”. Tropical ocean is heat engine of world. Tropical ocean can “give heat to rest of world or dump it into space.
The tropical ocean can transport more heat via ocean surface waters movement than the atmosphere.
The tropics stays about the same temperature whether Earth in an Ice Age or Hothouse climate.
The controlling element of average temperature of 60% of the rest of world is the average temperature of the ocean.
Our ocean during 34 million years ice age, has been about 1 to 5 C, and currently it’s about 3.5 C.
In regards to tropics with thick layer of warm surface waters- it not effect much if ocean is 1 C or 15 C [or 20 C}. But if ocean warms by 1 C {or more} it has strong effect upon the 60% of the world.
If any related to reality is connected to CAGW, it’s ocean which warmed from 3.5 to 5 C.
And guess CAGW is getting rid of deserts and making rain forests.
“And guess CAGW is getting rid of deserts and making rain forests. ”
Probably less rain forest.
This is a press release, but you can probably backtrack to the original paper.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fires-could-turn-amazon-rainforest-desert-human-activity-and-climate-change-threaten-lungs-world-says-study-9259741.html
The Amazon rainforest relies on rainfall on its Western edge from the Gulf of Mexico and from the Andes.
This is sucked into the trees and evaporates from their leaves in the mornings and the heat of the day. The water vapour is carried Eastwards by the wind and rains out in the afternoon as the air cools.
This repeats each day, carrying the water from the Andes to the Atlantic in steps of about 100km/day.
If the water falls on an area without trees, the water runs off into a river and is effectively lost. The trees downwind also get less water and start drying out.
This is already happening. Climate change is reducing rainfall in Western Amazonia, with some areas reverting from rain forest to savannah. In other areas rain forest is being lost to logging and agriculture, interrupting the water transport cycle.
At some point the whole area will tip over to savannah, leaving only a few relics of the original forest where the rainfall remains high.
–“And guess CAGW is getting rid of deserts and making rain forests. ”
Probably less rain forest.–
Our ocean has remained around 3.5 C for thousands of years.
It’s one thing consider CAGW in future and another to imagine it happening now.
But rain forest would/should effect local climate- sawing it all down will have effect local climate and effect global climate.
It not CAGW, it’s socialism.
Why We Find Rainforests in Unexpected Places
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSOqJ5bRHx0
“Many of us are familiar with rainforests; lush and exotic environments that serve as the pinnacle of life on Earth. For the most part we assume these only occur throughout the tropics, but as it turns out certain areas in the temperate latitudes can receive just as much rainfall, creating a number of rainforests in unexpected places.”
The media reporting on Steve Koonin is another example of biased reporting.
History won’t be good to these people.
One Hundred Authors Against Einstein was published in 1931. When asked to comment on this denunciation of relativity by so many scientists, Einstein replied that to defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact.
https://imgur.com/xikIZ96
100 scientists? 97% Concensus? Hmmmm.
So sorry, consensus.
You might like:
https://climateball.net/but-consensus/
Like the consensus is that you need a 30 year period and anomalies to get the details under control.
On the other hand a simple gaussian filter of 12 months does the same thing with a lot less fuss.
(Oh, you do need to remove the mean of the 30 period to get exactly the same output)
https://tinyurl.com/ctz7zcdt
Like Gaussians squirrels are non-causal.
Unlike Gaussians squirrels are pure noise.
I didn’t know that squirrels did DSP
They don’t either.
Either what?
Both.
The problem with being an enigmatic wordsmith is that end up not being understood by anyone
Perhaps I should have said BOFA, Richard.
Have you progressed to Ligma already?
Balls are less thematic than nuts when talking about squirrels, Richard.
Did you know that ants are able to solve the traveling salesman problem? They don’t either. In fact they might even know they exist. Which is a good thing for they’re artificial ants.
> In fact they might even know
That’s overoptimistic.
I intended to write that they might not even know.
AI is able to solve a lot of problems that otherwise have no direct computing solutions. And we mostly don’t know how it does it there either.
Then you have all you need to understand what “they don’t either” is supposed to mean in response to “I didn’t know that squirrels did DSP,” Richard.
You want me to train an AI to think like a squirrel?
That would actually be a good idea!
I have them occasionally
An AI rat would be cool too:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/mine-sniffing-rat-magawa-ends-years-of-hard-work-in-cambodia-1.5457729
The One…many facts trump any consensus.
You rely on consensus when your models fail like this. People lie, numbers don’t.
https://imgur.com/WilpgD0
https://imgur.com/a/CDasqHH
The media reporting of this paper reminds me of another media report on the NASA mission to Venus to explore greenhouse gases. The reporter states that because of the runaway greenhouse effect, the atmosphere is so hot that the atmospheric pressure is very high. I would think that the high temperature is rather due to the high atmospheric pressure. However, that does not sit well with the global warming narrative
“I would think that the high temperature is rather due to the high atmospheric pressure. ”
Unfortunately high pressure does not necessarily mean high temperature.
When you compress the gas it heats up, but once you reach constant pressure the gas cools to match its environment.
Remember how hot a bicycle tyre gets when you pump it up, and how it then keeps most of the pressure while cooling back to room temperature.
Becausec of its high albedo Venus actually takes up less heat than Earth, so despite the high pressure it would end up cooler than Earth.
Except for that humongous greenhouse effect!
Ent, you are favoring your beliefs over reality, again.
Venus is hot due to proximity to Sun and vulcanism. The surface has a humongous energy intake.
Look at the figures.
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/qj.2704
Earth receives 340w/m^2 from the Sun and reflects 100W. It absorbs 240W/m^2.
Venus receives 656W/m^2 and reflects 496W/m^2. Venus absorbs 160W/m^2 which is only 2/3 of what Earth takes up.
On that basis Venus should have a considerably cooler surface than Earth.
Your figures are from your cult, Ent. Reality is that Venus receives about 2600 W/m^2, which is about twice the solar to Earth. That means at least twice as much high energy photons, well into UV.
If Earth only really received 240 W/m^2, the oceans would freeze over. Ice emits about 300 W/m^2.
You don’t understand any of this. Your cult is more important to you than science.
Silly Clint.
> If Earth only really received 240 W/m^2, the oceans would freeze over.
Unless…
0.3 times 2600 = 780
0.7 times 1360 = 952
some people give a bag of hammers a run for there money
Venus should be cooler
Ent and Willard go quickly to adolescent responses.
But poor bob actually tries some numbers!
Of course he doesn’t realize that his numbers are meaningless.
Venus absorbs high energy UV photons. That UV warms the molecules in the atmosphere. But CO2 does not emit UV. The UV thus raises the temperature of the atmosphere, while the surface is oozing lava.
That’s why it’s warmer than Earth.
Pup,
You remind me of someone, but I cant remember who.
He was also inconsequential.
Except dear Clint R,
There is a spacecraft orbiting Venus looking for oozing lava and not finding any.
Also, “Scientists suspect that there are three volcanoes that may be active: Maat Mons, Ozza Mons and Sapas Mons.[9][10]”
Only 3, how many active volcanos are on earth?
Thing is you also forgot, most of the high energy photons are reflected from Venus, while most high energy photons enter the Earth’s atmosphere.
Again you fail to convince why Venus is so hot.
Smart as a bowl of cold corn flakes, you are.
What makes this fun is that I don’t even have to set up any traps. The idiots set their own traps, and then get mad at me when they trap themselves!
I explained to bob that UV is heating the Venus atmosphere. But bob was unable to understand my clear explanation. Instead, he claims that UV is “reflected”. Of course, that is nonsense and just “reflects” bob’s deficiency in science. UV has enough energy to penetrate things that are a opaque to visible light.
Now if bob really had any interest in learning, instead of trolling, he could research the energy budget for Venus. That would be a good learning exercise.
“90 % of the total volume of ocean is found below the thermocline in the deep ocean. The deep ocean is not well mixed. The deep ocean is made up of horizontal layers of equal density. Much of this deep ocean water is between 0-3 degrees Celsius (32-37.5 degrees Fahrenheit)! It’s really, really cold down there!”
Close to freezing then
RLH, you’re rapidly becoming one of my favorite trolls.
You have no clue about science, but you know how to use your keyboard. You search for something that you believe in, not understanding any of it.
The freezing point of seawater changes with pressure.
And, I predict you won’t understand that.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Quit looking in your mirror, Pup.
Clint R,
“Instead, he claims that UV is reflected.”
Now where did I say UV was reflected?
Hmmmm
bob. if you want to retract, or correct, what you stated, I have no problem with that.
Correcting your mistakes is a healthy part of learning.
Clint R,
Indeed you feckless ****, you know I didn’t say UV was reflected, so it’s you who made the mistake as usual.
So you should take it back, if you are a man, that is.
Looks like you are not.
Anyway, can you provide any evidence UV is not reflected from Venus?
Even though I never said it was.
Ball is now in your court, support your arguments with evidence, that’s how science is done.
Clint R: You don’t say! This science stuff is so much fun
bob, I first mentioned “high energy UV photons”:
“Venus absorbs high energy UV photons. That UV warms the molecules in the atmosphere. But CO2 does not emit UV. The UV thus raises the temperature of the atmosphere, while the surface is oozing lava.”
So the discussion involved “high energy UV photons”. It was reasonable to think you were referring to the same photons as me, since those were the only photons mentioned, when you stated:
“Thing is you also forgot, most of the high energy photons are reflected from Venus, while most high energy photons enter the Earth’s atmosphere.”
I gave you a chance to correct your statement, but you chose to be offended by your own incompetence.
So either correct/amend/change/clarify your statement, or you look incompetent and confused, as usual.
Dear Clint R,
You are totally out of your depth here and you have no evidence to support your case and your are lying about what I said.
No you poor sod, UV or high energy photons are not heating the atmosphere of Venus. So do you care to provide evidence that Venus is hot due to UV or high energy photons rather than the conventional Hansen story that it is the abundance of CO2 in the atmosphere that is preventing the infrared from the surface escaping to space?
The albedo of Venus is 0.7, so most of the light is reflected from Venus.
The albedo of Earth is 0.3, so most of the light is retained by Earth.
What part of that do you fail to understand.
Just keep making shit up, that’s all you are good for.
Have you cracked your Quantum Physics textbook lately, oh, wait you sold it for drugs.
Why is Venus hotter than Mercury?
And what about the Deuterium?
I guess you’re not going to either correct/amend/change/clarify your statement, bob. Instead, you’re trying to weasel out by now changing to “light” that is reflected.
I can’t teach physics to idiots, trolls, or weasels. You’re a 3-time loser.
Clint R,
You just can’t admit that you were wrong in claiming I said UV photons were reflected.
What a cunt of the highest order.
Not Lance Armstrong territory, but close.
And by the way, you can’t teach physics to anyone, not even kindergarteners, because you never passed any physics courses, you just eat Cheetos in your mom’s basement.
Hey, who pays for your computer and internet access?
Yes bob, I can see how frustrated you are.
Reality is so tough on 3-time losers, huh?
Bob is able to easily handle both Pup and Kiddo.
Why?
Is Bob smarter, or just aware of the relative physics?
Likely both…
Let’s see Clint R,
If all the light going to Venus was UV, and it heated the atmosphere, how hot would it get?
2600 * 0.3 = 780 watts/meter^2
Divide by 4 for the usual reasons and use the Stephan Boltzmann equation, it’s not bogus you know.
So that amount can heat the atmosphere of Venus to about 30 below C.
And how hot is Venus?
Clint R, your math, science and logic is all fucked up.
Let’s see bob,
If all the UV going to Venus was UV, it would be much more energy than insolence. #1
All of the UV would be absorbed by the atmosphere, NOT just 30%. #2
And, you don’t divide flux by 4. #3
3-time loser, again.
Well done.
> If all the UV going to Venus was UV
Is this what the cool kids call mathematical ontology, Pup?
Clint R,
“Lets see bob,
If all the UV going to Venus was UV, it would be much more energy than insolence. #1
All of the UV would be absorbed by the atmosphere, NOT just 30%. #2
And, you dont divide flux by 4. #3″
3-time loser, again.
Well done.”
Now you are just drooling, better call Omar the tent maker for a bigger bib.
All the UV going to Venus is UV!
Albedo Albedo Albedo says Jan Brady.
I can divide flux anytime I want to.
> Venus is hot due to proximity to Sun and vulcanism. The surface has a humongous energy intake.
Incorrect, Pup.
Venus is hot because she embodies (with or without arms) beauty and sexuality.
You are humorous with your energyless takes.
Venus is hot because of the froth in the seashell.
All ya’ll are wrong.
Venus rising first and shining best.
Always good to quote Jerry Garcia.
Some should look to albedo. Venus reflects way more light than Earth, so they should be at near the same temperature.
What’s the diff?
I got some gas tanks, nitrogen, hydrogen, and helium at higher pressure than is on the surface of Venus, they are cool to the touch.
bobdroege
That statement clearly would pass peer review with top success.
J.-P. D.
At least with my peers who use compressed gases anyway.
Ah. But compressing gasses makes them permanently hotter, apparently.
Well if Venus get same amount of sunlight as Earth did, it’s CO2 gas would convert into CO2 liquid, and so it’s atmosphere would have less pressure, as it would lost to lakes of liquid CO2.
And after it’s atmosphere collapses, one might get frozen CO2 in the polar region or simply during the long night- on nightside of Venus.
On Earth and at sea level, there is about 10 ton of atmosphere per square meter area {or 14.7 lbs per square inch}.
On Venus at zero elevation, there is about 920 tons of atmosphere per square meter [or 1352.4 lbs per square inch].
On Earth when Sun is near zenith the Sunlight shine thru 10 ton of atmosphere per square meter. When Sun is 30 degree above horizon, at equator- about two hours after sunrise and two hours before sunset. [And roughly similar for any other latitude you are at].
The sunlight goes thru 20 tons of atmosphere per square meter. And when closer to sunrise or sunset it can go thru more the 100 tons of atmosphere per square meter.
And on Venus when sun is 30 degrees above horizon {or 60 degree away from zenith] the sunlight is thru 1840 tons of atmosphere per square meter. And Venus always has lots of haze and thick clouds {Or it’s like very polluted air [or forest fire haze] plus it’s cloudy weather. Or quite dark. But if at higher elevations such 5 km above sea level, and sun at zenith it’s only going thru 666 tons of atmosphere per square meter. And sunlight twice as intense at Venus distance as compared to Earth distance from Sun.
The Russian probe, Venera 9, wiki:
On October 20, 1975, the lander spacecraft separated from the orbiter, and landing was made with the Sun near zenith…The lander measured a light level of 14,000 lux, similar to that of Earth in full daylight but no direct sunshine”
So if see our sun as very bright patch on cloud- it’s like that.
Or much brighter than typical indoor lighting. Or since a solar panel is able to get power from indirect sunlight one could get some electrical power from that sunlight. But clear skies on Earth would get more power for solar panel and such earth sunlight would have more warmth. And appears to me Venera 9 landed on Venus surface where the elevation of around 5000 meter-
had about 666 tons per square meter of Venus air.
Now, question where on Venus rocky surface is it the hottest.
Well on Earth the hottest surface are not above 60 degree latitude, but on Venus there appear some larger regions of lower elevation -2000 meter or more, above 60 degree latitude. But sunlight would get more 30 degrees above horizon at noon, the sunlight would be always going thru 1840 tons of atmosphere per square meter. And be “colder” at higher elevations even if near equator and getting brighter sunlight.
If lived on Venus, you live around cloud level where there is bright sunlight and plenty of solar power.
It seems most of housing wouldn’t be permanently anchored relative to rocky surface. With the winds one could move with the sun. The wind would like ocean current in which one get choice of speed and direction depending the sky depth. Or big boats which can go high and low in atmosphere. Though you don’t need sails, one could have sails.
If human are living in skies of Venus, then they would be mining the acid clouds, and the acid clouds would become a limited resource- you would deplete the skies of acid.
And acid clouds cause “global warming”. Humans would cause massive global cooling to Venus.
Also CO2 would valuable. Mars only has 25 trillion tonnes of CO2, Mars surface would be good place to grow “crops”- and Venus sky isn’t a good place to grow crops, nor is the rocky surface of Venus.
Venus orbit is much better than Earth orbit, in regards to lowest energy needed to travel within our solar system- the hohmann transfer. Which basically one travels in space to opposite side our orbit. Go from when summer to far side of orbit where it would be Earth winter. Or spring to Fall- obviously depending which hemisphere. And if closer to Sun, it shorter distance and therefore if going a shorter distance it take less time.
So go from earth winter to summer, it’s shorter distance to go from earth winter to Venus summer. Going from Earth winter to Mars summer it’s longer distance compared to Venus Summer {or earth summer}. But because Venus is closer to sun. Venus winter to Mars summer, is shorter distance than Earth winter to Mars summer. If starting [or ending] from even closer to Sun, like Marcury distance, it’s faster than compared to Venus distance.
Or from Earth, hohmann transfer take 105 days to get to Mercury distance. Earth to Venus it’s 146 days and Earth to Mars is 259 days.
And Mercury to Mars is 170 days. And Venus to Mars is 217 days [or also Mars to Venus is 217 days- it’s same duration going or coming. Or if going from Venus and reach Mars in 217 days, if don’t stop at Mars, you return to that Venus distance from Sun in another 217 days- one leg out is same time as leg back. Or 217 days is 1/2 of the circle.
But a more important aspect is the launch window to Mars. A earth launch window to Mars occurs every 2.125 years. Or launch 2000 AD July, one only launch again later than July in 2002 AD.
But with Venus to Mars, the launch window with Mars is .9142 years. Or get more than twice the launch windows from Venus to Mars as Earth to Mars. Or if going from Earth [or going from Mars] and you use Venus orbit, you add twice as many launch windows from Earth to Mars [or from Mars to Earth. Get 3 vs 1 over a 2 year time period. Mercury distance adds even more- but it’s harder to get to the Planet Mercury. Venus is easiest planet to reach from anywhere in solar system.
Also going to Mars from Earth one get there quicker by modifying the hohmann transfer, get and do get there in 7 months [210 days vs 259 days- 49 days quicker. With Venus similar modifying the orbit could shorter than 49 days less. So, say 50 days less from the 217 days being 167 days or 5 1/2 months rather the 7.2 months of 217 day trip time. So just a bit delta-v to least amount energy needed by what called simple hohmann transfer. This faster way is call hohmann + patched conic [which involve small vector change of hohmann transfer]. Also allows more flexiblity in terms the more exact time needed to launch from Earth. Or cloudy bad weather, could delay days or weeks until get better conditions.
>>On Venus at zero elevation, there is about 920 tons of atmosphere per square meter
actually nope, you forgt about the lower gravity on venus, which is only 91% of earths. To estimate the mass of the atmpshere, you should divide pressure which is 92 times the earth by the gravity strength ratio, e.g. 920/.91=1011 tonnes per m2.
1 atm pressure is based on pressure {or weight] of Earth.
Or Venus atmosphere would weigh more on Earth.
Which is interesting point.
Things would float better on Venus then I was allowing for- or if using say steel balloon, would have convert the weight of steel to weight of steel on Venus.
So use our number, 8000 kg per cubic meter is 8000 times .91 is
7,280 kg per cubic meter.
Oh, I guess doesn’t matter much, as I was using weight of CO2 gas on Earth. But like Mars, Venus has slightly less buoyancy force as compared to Earth. Or cable holding against force of buoyancy {as compared to Earth buoyancy force] is slightly less on Venus, and a lot less on Mars.
So have boat on Earth, Mars or Venus, the boat floats same amount cargo on water, but want pull boat underwater, it require more force on Earth [the cable or rope has to be stronger for Earth}. Or same with balloons.
Hmm, if you could switch or just add Venus atmosphere with Earth’s
atmosphere, it would cool very rapidly. The lack oxygen would kill everything. The Venus clouds would “be on fire” from all the water. sea levels would drop and a bit. Surface air pressure would be higher than Venus surface air pressure. And it would rain a lot.
Would not have ice particles in clouds, but in months, Earth would be cold. And surface would be in complete darkness.
The Matrix “blacken the skies” would result.
And could be regarded as preparation to make Earth a starship which leaves our solar system.
And if were 100 feet under water, the only effect is increase in water pressure. And then the darkness.
A scuba tank has twice the pressure of Venus internally. It heats up a bit when filled, but cools to ambient temperature very quickly*. If pressure = temperature, divers would blister their backs.
* I’ve done this myself, filling scuba tanks on a boat.
Yup
No, the GHE is high due to the high pressure. High pressure broadens spectral ab-ion lines, making all present GHGs including the water vapor much more efficient.Afaik the lapse rate n venus is close to adiabatic, meaning that the GHE there is nearly maxed out.
testing “aЬ5orр+іon”
A full stop between the p and the t will do it.
Absorp.tion
DPS, in climate you often see different aspects related to the same thing. However, it doesn’t mean one of those aspects is the cause of another.
The pressure at the surface of Venus is due to the massive atmosphere. The temperature of the surface is also related to the massive atmosphere. However, it has nothing to do with the pressure. It is due to the effects of the adiabatic lapse rate which starts much higher because of the massive atmosphere.
No greenhouse effect required.
I’m shocked, shocked that the Daily Mail would do anything besides calmly explore the intricacies of the paper.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7287943/The-global-warming-climate-change-make-Australia-greener.html
Craig T
Yeah.
One of Roy Spencer’s threads I have been most wondering about was that in which he wrote, with zero % irony, that the Third Viscount would be a ‘brilliant mathematician’.
Fortunately for all of us, Roy Spencer obviously knows a lot more about atmospheric layers than what is supposed to make Monckton stand out.
J.-P. D.
IIRC the observed temperatures have been in the lower quartile of the CMIP5 ensemble range. This has generally been attributed to higher than forecast industrial aerosol albedo.
Is the TWV effect an alternative effect to increased albedo or in addition to increased albedo?
I highly appreciate all these ‘Specialist’s writing
” On the other hand a simple gaussian filter of 12 months does the same thing with a lot less fuss. ”
Aha.
The basic principle of ‘anomalies’ (a truly bad synonym for ‘departures’) is of course not to filter anything.
They aim at removing seasonal dependencies out of time series of any kind (in our context: temperature, rainfall, wind, snow cover, sea ice, sea levels, …): i.e., what Roy Spencer names ‘the annual cycle’.
Apart from the (somewhat secondary) fact that this removal decreases the deviations from the mean in time series, there is a major aspect making such anomalies really worth to be used.
Since e.g. monthly anomalies (as opposed to classical departures) aren’t simply a subtraction of a global mean from monthly values, but rather are built such that a corresponding monthly mean is subtracted instead, they are disconnected from the yearly highest or lowest values.
And that is what explains a fact which otherwise would have been kept hidden, namely that winter months can experience increase stronger than summer months, and of course vice-versa.
*
This is easy to see when comparing, for UAH6.0 LT, the head of a descending sort of reconstructed absolute data with that for the anomalies themselves:
Top 10 highest absolute values
1998 7 265.80
2020 7 265.72
2016 7 265.67
2019 7 265.67
1998 8 265.62
2010 7 265.62
2018 7 265.59
2017 7 265.58
2016 8 265.55
1998 6 265.54
Top 10 highest anomalies
2016 2 0.70
2016 3 0.64
1998 4 0.62
2016 4 0.61
2020 2 0.59
1998 5 0.52
1998 2 0.49
2017 10 0.47
2019 9 0.45
2019 12 0.44
*
Conversely, when looking at lowest values, we see:
Top 10 lowest absolute values
1985 2 262.64
1989 1 262.64
1984 1 262.68
1993 1 262.69
1979 1 262.71
1978 12 262.72
1986 2 262.74
1985 1 262.74
1992 12 262.75
1983 12 262.77
Top 10 lowest anomalies
1984 9 -0.67
1985 2 -0.64
1985 7 -0.64
1985 10 -0.59
1985 3 -0.59
1992 9 -0.59
1992 8 -0.58
1993 3 -0.56
1982 10 -0.55
1982 7 -0.54
*
The difference is evident: anomalies don’t show what is coldest / warmest, they show what is cooler / warmer wrt a mean.
The same happens when comparing absolute temperatures and anomalies for CONUS. In anomaly sorts, most of the sacrosanct data for the 1930’s suddenly disappear from the top of the list – but not by bad magic, as do claim too many inexperienced persons.
*
Here is a sequence of graphs I constructed a long while ago, showing, for a comparison between UAH’s lower troposphere and lower stratosphere observations, the transition from absolute data via simple departures from a global mean, to anomalies without annual cycle.
1. Absolute data
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16GaarHUs7npnzyN5-wtJ7z0qODSKplVq/view
2. Absolute data, relative to their respective mean
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12ntQPUMotlrIUXTYn8721WpD3S0sihjc/view
3. Anomalies with annual cycle removal
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OO6HpUOvk_N_tC2fUt8wzDDvMzhYM8C_/view
Who does not understand the usefulness of (3) compared with (2) should avoid commenting about time series.
*
My opinion: the most fuss is not so much contained in anomaly construction, but much more in the comment above surrounding that word.
J.-P. D.
What are you rambling about?
Do you dispute that a 12 month gaussian removes the seasonal cycle completely?
I certainly do. A 12 month moving average can do that, because its Fourier transform has a zero at the annual frequency. But the transform of a Gaussian is a Gaussian, and has no zeroes.
Damn. Then this is impossible
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2021/06/09/2984/
Well, it doesn’t help that you have no x-axis marked. But there is no proof that you have removed the seasonal cycle completely. The Gaussian filter will reduce it.
I removed the x axis as it was in decimal years which can be quite confusing. The point was that Roy’s 13 year running mean can be replicated from a Gaussian without the need for anomalies, etc.
13 month running mean not 13 year
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/biased-media-reporting-on-the-new-santer-et-al-study-regarding-satellite-tropospheric-temperature-trends/#comment-724797
I tried a 13 month moving average using Dr Spencer’s values for the annual cycle, absolute temps in Kelvin.
https://i.imgur.com/jtQd1eP.png
The seasonal cycle is still there, just the amplitude much reduced.
“I tried a 13 month moving average”
Since when were there 13 months in a year?
You need to use a 12 month gaussian filter to completely remove the annual/seasonal cycle.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/biased-media-reporting-on-the-new-santer-et-al-study-regarding-satellite-tropospheric-temperature-trends/#comment-724797
Using a 12 month running average gives
https://imgur.com/a/N3BbCiY
You will need additional noise data to see the differences between that an a triple running mean
“Since when were there 13 months in a year?”
There aren’t, but you said not long ago that Dr Spencer’s 13-month running mean removes the seasonal signal. I replied that the 13-month running mean Dr Spencer applies is of the anomalies, so the seasonal signal is already removed.
I also wanted to show that a 13 month running mean does not remove the seasonal signal, hence the graph I linked just above.
A 12-month running mean doesn’t remove the seasonal signal either, just mutes it.
barry: “A 12-month running mean doesn’t remove the seasonal signal either, just mutes it.”
A 12 moth running mean adds distortions to the output but otherwise completely removes the seasonal signal.
A near Gaussian CRTM removes ALL of the seasonal signal and does not introduce distortions. (In fact it removes the distortions the 12 month running mean adds by adding further 10 and 8 running mean passes to compensate)
See Vaughan Pratt for detailed explanations of how that works over on Judith Curry’s blog.
https://judithcurry.com/2013/11/22/data-corruption-by-running-mean-smoothers/#comment-417636
Or https://judithcurry.com/2013/11/22/data-corruption-by-running-mean-smoothers/#comment-417814
“3: 1.2067, 1.5478 Leakage 0.31% or -50.1 dB”
or 12, 10, 8 to the nearest integer numbers of months
“A 12 moth running mean adds distortions to the output but otherwise completely removes the seasonal signal.”
Agreed. You were right, and I was wrong. I checked.
Thank you.
A running mean has a terrible frequency response as I have shown elsewhere. This allows any random ‘noise’ or step changes to muddy the climate signal. Which is why I prefer Gaussian filters that do not exhibit such behaviors.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/biased-media-reporting-on-the-new-santer-et-al-study-regarding-satellite-tropospheric-temperature-trends/#comment-727477
I suppose I should be more welcoming.
Hi Nick. Nice to talk again. A lot has happened since we last met. I have translated the r and excel stuff I used to have back when I published on WUWT so long ago into c#. A language I am happier in. Still the same 12 month CTRM/Gaussian as I had back then.
The data shown above is where someone challenged me to run my code (actually it was the spreadsheet) over some absolute temperature figures created by adding back in the reference data to the anomalies on Roys data.
This then creates an absolute dataset for UAH and I then ran what I have over it.
As you may have noticed from the output the curve is identical (well nearly identical as it removes some of the out of ban errors caused by using 13 month running means) with that as created by Roy.
Thus proving that Gaussian/CTRM can remove the seasonal cycle and leave just the summary.
I certainly do. A 12 month moving average can do that, because its Fourier transform has a zero at the annual frequency. But the transform of a Gaussian is a Gaussian, and has no zeroes.
RLH is using “Gaussian” and “CTRM” (cascaded triple running mean) filter interchangeably. His CTRM has a 12 month running mean filter as one stage of the cascade, so it does have a zero at the annual frequency.
Of course this CTRM filter is only an approximation to a Gaussian filter which is important in the context of removing the annual cycle. The lack of precision in language and vague assertions is the source of much confusion and endless exchange. It’s unclear whether or not this is by design, but I lean to the former.
“Of course this CTRM filter is only an approximation to a Gaussian filter which is important in the context of removing the annual cycle.”
A very, very close approximation to a Gaussian filter which errs on the side of completely removing the annual cycle which is why I prefer it.
“The lack of precision in language”
I try to be precise in my language. It would appear that it does not always confer the meaning I have attached to it by the recipients.
“A 12 month moving average can do that”
A 12 month moving average produces a terrible amount of ringing outside its band. Have you ever looked at its frequency response?
https://ptolemy.berkeley.edu/eecs20/week12/freqResponseRA.html
Do you further dispute that a 15 year gaussian removes all weather and other short term effects from the climate?
RLH
There is only one guy rambling all the time here, and that’s you.
I don’t dispute the tiny bits you tell about your gaussian stuff, RLH.
I was just writing a bit about the bigger bits you deliberately ignore.
You are such an arrogant person.
*
Btw, I still await you delivering three time series for a comparison of daily
– averages of hourly data;
– medians of hourly data;
– averages of (tmin+tmax) / 2,
for any longer temperature data period with hourly recording, VISIBLY proving your claim that median-based series is far more accurate than the other two.
And as you know, I understand with VISIBLY something quite more relevant than your laughable CTRM/box car comparison for UAH…
J.-P. D.
“I dont dispute the tiny bits you tell about your gaussian stuff, RLH.
I was just writing a bit about the bigger bits you deliberately ignore.”
You would know or understand all this.
Ok then.
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2021/06/09/2984/
Do you believe that anomalies are the only relevant way to display climate data? That the seasonal cycle cannot be removed in other ways?
“Who does not understand the usefulness of (3) compared with (2) should avoid commenting about time series.”
Those who do not understand the relevance of DSP to time series data from any source should get some retraining
Anomalies are useful for showing the regionality and the seasonality of Global Warming.
We may not want to filter-out that seasonal effect.
Well as anomalies are designed to filter out seasonal effects I’m not sure how you get them back
A 12 month accurate blocking filter can achieve individual station effects if you so wish.
“Well as anomalies are designed to filter out seasonal effects Im not sure how you get them back”
No. They remove the average seasonality over base period.
They remove average seasonality over what is a statistically short base period because the data we have is only quite short.
1/30 is a very poor statistical choice. 1/100 would normally be considered low. 1/1000 or more would be more a normal choice. But we do not have that in climate data.
An alternative that did not require any base period to show the same outcomes would be a better statistical choice therefore would it not?
30 y is a standard for defining ‘climate’ in meteorology.
I think the point is to see how temperatures are changing each month relative to the same month in a previous defined climate period.
So we know eg. that certain regions are warming more, and certain months and seasons are warming more.
Anomalies make sense to resolve these changes.
Nate: “30 y is a standard for defining climate in meteorology.”
I know.
“I think the point is to see how temperatures are changing each month relative to the same month in a previous defined climate period.”
That is just using the data as a longer version of weather. Nothing we see will be likely to repeat except over a lifetime or more.
“So we know eg. that certain regions are warming more, and certain months and seasons are warming more.”
See above
“Anomalies make sense to resolve these changes.”
Anomalies are one way of seeing these things. Because of their relatively short base periods, they are always going to let some of the ‘noise’ in any reference period leak through. The best choice of all would be the entire available record as a reference period rather than some shorter period, however long that is.
Anomalies are not the only method of removing the annual/seasonal cycle to allow for graphs to be centered around 0 with a small vertical range (assuming time to be horizontal). A precise, no oddities, 12 month filter will do the same thing.
“A precise, no oddities, 12 month filter will do the same thing.”
But will smear out any seasonality of global warming.
“Because of their relatively short base periods, they are always going to let some of the noise in any reference period leak through.”
Lets consider the noise in a time-series of 30 consecutive Januarys.
ENSO is the largest source of short-term noise. Because ENSO is correlated over months, (8 mo. correlation decay time), the noise it produces is relatively uncorrelated in the above January series.
While it is quite correlated for consecutive months is a given year.
Thus if we average the 30 y of January together, we are going to reduce the noise caused by ENSO by ~ 1/sqrt(30).
But a 12 mo running mean will retain most of the ENSO noise.
So I think subtracting a 30 y base period will not add a significant amount of noise in the Anomaly.
Noise correlated over a few decades, that is not removed from a 30 year base, will still be plainly apparent in the Anomaly time series.
Nate: So what you are saying is that some years will be colder or warmer than others due to ENSO.
I am saying I want to retain that difference, which is what a 12 month gaussian filter does. Only removes the seasonal cycle, does not make assumptions about if the year is colder/warmer or not.
You assume that the 30 year period will be perfectly balanced as regards ENSO input. I think that is unlikely to be true unless the reference time period is very carefully chosen with that just in mind. But then there are other influences on climate that are non-ENSO related. How to you allow for those also?
“You assume that the 30 year period will be perfectly balanced as regards ENSO input. I think that is unlikely to be true unless the reference time period is very carefully chosen with that just in mind. ”
Never made any such assumption. Nor is it required for short-time noise to be reduced by a 30 year average.
Not sure what you are thinking here?
Longer-time scale noise does not need to be eliminated. We want to see it in the time series, and we will see it in the anomaly record.
“Nate: So what you are saying is that some years will be colder or warmer than others due to ENSO.
I am saying I want to retain that difference”
It is retained in the anomaly record. Why wouldnt it be?
Because the 30 year ‘normal’ is not likely to have an equal balance of ENSO positive and ENSO negative events.
“We want to see it in the time series”
A 12 month filter will preserve everything in the time series data that is longer than a year. Without needing to chose a normal period to do so.
“‘Nate: So what you are saying is that some years will be colder or warmer than others due to ENSO.
I am saying I want to retain that difference’
Me: ‘It is retained in the anomaly record. Why wouldnt it be?’
You: “Because the 30 year normal is not likely to have an equal balance of ENSO positive and ENSO negative events.”
Huhh??!!
You seemed very confused about what anomalies are.
They are time series data for a month like January with the 30 year average of January from the base period subtracted.
Subtracting a constant doesn’t remove year to year variation!
But if the constant you are subtracting contains too many cold or too many warm data then what are you doing?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/biased-media-reporting-on-the-new-santer-et-al-study-regarding-satellite-tropospheric-temperature-trends/#comment-727477
“But if the constant you are subtracting contains too many cold or too many warm data then what are you doing?”
Shifting slightly where the ‘0’ line is. Who cares?
Certainly doesnt remove year-to-year variation as you implied.
When we are looking at 0.x degrees, details matter.
If you thought I said it removed year to year things you would be wrong. I made it clear I was talking about less than a year and less than 15 year stuff.
There appears to be 4 broad areas of frequency analysis applicable to climate and weather.
1. Less than 12 months.
2. Greater than 12 months and less than 15 years.
3. Greater than 15 years and less than 75 years.
4. Greater than 75 years.
Any climate signal can be decomposed into those 4 sections whilst still retaining the overall response.
Not all climate data is long enough to provide all 4 sections. Some will only be able to cover 3 of them to date. That does not mean that the 4th will not be available in the future.
“some years will be colder or warmer than others due to ENSO.
I am saying I want to retain that difference”
The clear implication is that anomalies DONT retain that difference.
But this wrong. Oh well, move on.
It was statement of fact, not a criticism of anomalies but…
Ok so maybe you can see how use of anomalies is not so bad afterall…
My complaint, such that it is, is that anomalies are unnecessarily complicated given that other ways that can preform the same function.
They also create noise from unequal distributions in the references periods. Which is why different reference periods produce more than simple 0 position changes.
“They also create noise from unequal distributions in the references periods. Which is why different reference periods produce more than simple 0 position changes.”
Youve said that. But thus far you havent shown it to be significant.
With factions of a degrees being important, everything is significant
[PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, ASSEMBLER (MORE THAN ONE), C, C++, C#, VB (MORE THAN ONE), R, SQL, PASCAL, AND A FEW OTHERS, TO A LEVEL GOOD ENOUGH TO DEBUG OTTERS CODE AND SOLVE THEIR PROBLEMS. MORE THAN 40 YEARS IN THE INDUSTRY, THE ODD QUALIFICATION IN THE FIELD, TEACHING SOME OF THAT TO THE OTHERS] not a criticism of anomalies but…
“With factions of a degrees being important, everything is significant”
Science will file that in the appropriate place…
People who wish to ignore significance will always diminish relevance.
“ignore significance”
As a stats aware guy, you should know that ‘significance’ is a quantifiable thing.
You havent rmmotely tried to quantify the significance. You are simply declaring it is significant.
In science, that is not worth a hill of beans.
Today I found something which might be of interest wrt what is discussed here:
A multi-year comparison of lower stratospheric temperatures from CHAMP radio occultation with MSU/AMSU records
3rd International Workshop on Occultations for Probing Atmosphere and Climate
OPAC-3, 17−21 September 2007, Graz, Austria
A.K. Steiner, G. Kirchengast, M. Borsche, and U. Foelsche
WegCenter & IGAM, University of Graz, Austria
https://wegccon.uni-graz.at/opac3/pdf_presentation/opac3_andreak._steiner_23_presentation.pdf
Maybe somebody has idle time to invest on it, I don’t.
J.-P. D.
” September 2007″
The most modern information you have?
Some information may not be entirely up-to-date, but will remain substantial and original over the long term.
Your Gaussian narrow-gauge story, on the other hand, is more recent, but of sad triviality, and does not exactly honor the great mathematician who brought it to life.
J.-P. D.
Don’t fuss yourself. I have Nick Stokes to play with now. He understands DSP way more than you do.
You going over to moyhu to play, if so, I’ll get some popcorn and watch.
No. I’ll wait here for him to come by again I think
That means you don’t really have Nick to play with, Richard.
But you’re right that you should have been more welcoming.
He’ll come back
In fact it would appear that Nick has blocked me from posting on moyhu after I observed that Mollwiende was a better choice for map projections than what he was using (and which he had originally promised he would do) Perhaps he had just forgotten about me.
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2021/06/may-global-surface-templs-up-0012-from.html
Your comment is still there.
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2021/06/may-global-surface-templs-up-0012-from.html?showComment=1623441768436
But I am unable to add any new ones. I tried. Even Anonymous ones get refused
Nothing has changed at Moyhu. It’s a Google environment; things go more smoothly if you use a Google ID. But whatever you did last time should still work.
I am on a Google ID. I tried various times to add to that post and it failed on all occasions. I therefore concluded that you had blocked me. If that is not so, I apologize.
Posted a new reply there and this time it went through. Must have been my finger troubles then. Apologies
Version 6.0 of the UAH Temperature Dataset Released: New LT Trend = +0.11 C/decade
April 28th, 2015 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/
And as of May 2021.
“The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land). ”
That’s quite an acceleration.
It’s gone up from 0.11C/decade up to 0.14C/decade. It’s an acceleration of 27% in six years.
Any idea about a relevant linear trend for the next 5 years?
I see no reason for it to slow unless someone throws a Pinatubo into the mix.
Lower bound, the present 0.14C/decade.
Most likely, 0.14C + 22% = 0.17C/decade.
Ah, but the tricky question that no-one is prepared to answer. How much natural variation/long term cyclic behavior is there in the data we see?
“How much natural variation/long term cyclic behaviour is there in the data we see?”
A red herring.
It implies that no matter what temperatures do, you can weasel your way out of providing the obvious explanation by resorting to ‘natural variation’ – as if things can happen by magic, or divine intervention beyond our ability to understand. However, significant long term variation of anything always has a physical explanation.
professor P: Not really. It would be unrealistic to say 0%. It would be unreasonable to say 100%. Where you place it in between is the real question.
Lots of short term pseudo-cycles , but nobody has demonstrated any of them to statistically significant levels.
Offhand the only two established with any confidence are the 11 year solar cycle and the 100,000 Milankivich cycle.
Your problem is that you have pattern seeking software that can pull patterns out of noise, but you then need two further steps.
1) Statistical significance.
2) A physically demonstrable mechanism.
We have become used to the “but cycles” Climateball card being played, but none have the high hurdle of scientific credibility.
If you want to do a real service to climate scepticism find a cycle which explains AGW; then demonstrate its reality and mechanism beyond reasonable doubt.
That doesn’t mean posting it on a blog, it means getting it published in Nature.
You have to show thousands of climate scientists that what you have is better than their current paradigm.
“Your problem is that you have pattern seeking software that can pull patterns out of noise”
Nothing I do is pattern seeking in any way. A low pass filter of greater than 15 years (running means if you cannot find something better) does not do pattern seeking. It does however show any cyclic or non-cyclic behavior longer than 15 years.
Try
Shen, C., W.-C. Wang, W. Gong, and Z. Hao. 2006.
A Pacific Decadal Oscillation record since 1470 AD reconstructed
from proxy data of summer rainfall over eastern China.
Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 33, L03702, February 2006.
Pull the data (its on an ftp), run a greater than 15 year low pass on it, and prove that their wavelet analysis demonstrates the expected cyclic behavior.
> That doesnt mean posting it on a blog,
It’d be a good first start. That or ArXiV.
Harder to simply publish graphs on ArXiV without analyzing them, tho.
And, yes, that wriggle is statistically significant!
Willard: Which topic under ArXiV would you suggest is appropriate? There appears to be nothing under Climate.
How about DSP?
No such topic as DSP or Digital Signal Processing
Did you mean ‘Signal Processing’?
I did not check. If there’s a Signal Processing category, that could be it.
It really depends on what you’re trying to accomplish, as they have some kind of sanity check. If they feel it’s not at the right place, you’ll get redirected:
https://arxiv.org/help/moderation
That’s mostly to do with radio topics so does not feel to be a natural fit
Anyway, I don’t have a paper yet
“If you build it, they will come.”
People usually post where they’re from, e.g.:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05433
Thanks for that
“Ah, but the tricky question that no-one is prepared to answer. How much natural variation/long term cyclic behavior is there in the data we see?”
IPCC certainly considers natural drivers, and has done since its inception, both natural radiative forcing (eg, solar, volcanic) and potential influences from other natural factors.
See Assessment Report 5 IPCC, two chapters:
Chapter 8: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing
Chapter 10: Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional
Next report is due out next year.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/
Barry: Do you have a percentage that they ascribe to natural or other, as yet unexplained, factors?
Yes.
The latest IPCC position is that AGW has turned a 0.01C/decade natural cooling trend into an artificial 0.2C/decade warming trend.
Thus we are responsible for 105% of the observed warming.
If their assumptions are correct
Not an assumption. The climate began cooling 5000 years ago.
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
The main known forcing are greenhouse gases, land use, albedo, solar insolation, volcanoes, ENSO, weathering, orbital cycles and plate tectonics.
Of these, increasing greenhouse gases and land use are causing significant warming. The others are neutral or having a slight cooling effect.
Add them all together and the known forcings account for the observed warming. No easily identified gaps to tell us we’ve missed something.
There may be unknowns, but either their effect is small or they are cancelling each other out.
The Earth has been cooling since it had a molten surface!
How fast recently is still up for grabs.
See https: slash slash tinyurl dot com slash pazwzcdf for cyclic and non-cyclic behaviors
> How fast recently is still up for grabs.
I think it’s safe to say that decades are not centuries are not millennia are not epochs.
Appealing to one’s ignorance of the speed with which AGW occurs would stretch the limits of justified disingenuousness.
Indeed but I referenced since 1850 in the url
https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-the-world-passed-a-carbon-threshold-400ppm-and-why-it-matters
1. That requires a belief that CO2 is completely responsible for the current warming
2. There are no other long term cyclic and non-cyclic behaviors that can explain some, if not all, of what we see.
RLH
You have two choices. Either the temperature data is good enough for you to analyse, or it is not.
Trying to play the “But cycles” and “But the data’s not good enough” Climateball cards at the same time just makes you sound like an arsehole.
> That requires a belief that CO2 is completely responsible for the current warming
No, Richard, it does not. It’s a conclusion:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/01/23/i-also-dont-get-judiths-logic/
As EM suggests in a comment that has been elided by Roy’s capricious filter, “But Data” and “But ABC” are not exactly compatible squares. Shifting from one to the other depending on where you are in a Climateball exchange makes you look like an asshat who has no idea what he’s talking about.
> elided by Roys capricious filter
And now it appears, after I refreshed the damn page five times.
God Roy’s WP installation sucks.
“Trying to play the “But cycles” and “But the data’s not good enough” Climateball cards at the same time just makes you sound like an arsehole.”
I just call what I see.
There are wriggles in the data from all temperature series and proxies which it are impossible to ignore.
There appears to be an all round assumption that there is nothing new to discover. That approach has always led to disaster.
There are some basic assumptions about how to remove the annual/seasonal cycle which can be looked at another way for instance.
Another is this insistence that DSP and filters are of no use in climate. Whilst at the same time using time based data series which DSP was invented to explore.
“No, Richard, it does not. Its a conclusion:”
So you don’t like Judith Curry. No surprise there then
Presumably you don’t like Roy Spencer either
No, Richard, it does not. Its a conclusion:
Back to first principles.
1) Physics projects the changes expected due to increasing CO2. These include increasing troposphere temperature, decreasing stratosphere temperature, decreased OLR, increased DWLR, both OLR and DWLR spectra and an energy imbalance.
2) All of the above are observed and their measured value match projections.
3) No alternative hypotheses based on other potential of actual forcing come anywhere close to explaining the observations.
Scientists do not “believe” that AGW is caused by increased CO2. They infer it from the evidence.
But as Roy says, he is a lukewarmer. Someone who believes that only part of what we see is a direct response to CO2. Some may be, but not all.
I concur
“1. I believe the climate system has warmed (we produce one of the global datasets that shows just that, which is widely used in the climate community), and that CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning contributes to that warming. Ive said this for many years.
2. I believe future warming from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would be somewhere in the range of 1.5 to 2 deg. C, which is actually within the range of expected warming the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has advanced for 30 years now. (It could be less than this, but we simply dont know).”
> I just call what I see.
So you don’t like consistency, Richard.
Got it.
“So you don’t like consistency, Richard.
Got it.”
So you have to put words in my mouth.
I can make observations on a range of things. They may be of completely different areas of the science. Doesn’t mean that those observations are not consistent.
“You have two choices. Either the temperature data is good enough for you to analyse, or it is not.”
2 value logic has led to more false conclusions than almost anything else.
True, false, other
is more accurate of the real world
> So you have to put words in my mouth.
Less then the number of words you need to put in my mind, Richard.
All I need is you saying “But Data” and you saying “But ABC.”
A luckwarmer, BTW, is someone who bets under 3C. Don’t trust Roy for a brand that is not his.
Willard: Just accept that there are those who do not believe that it is solely down to CO2.
Willard: Or that everything has already been discovered
> Just accept that there are those who do not believe that it is solely down to CO2.
I can even accept that the same fellows sometimes raise concerns about the quality of the data and how we process it, Richard.
So they’re never sure it’s CO2, but they’re quite sure it’s Anything But CO2.
“I can even accept that the same fellows sometimes raise concerns about the quality of the data and how we process it, Richard.”
Well I do have a little experience in data and its processing. Both on computers and in signal work. Really DSP does care how the x axis is labelled, in milliseconds or millennia.
“So they’re never sure it’s CO2, but they’re quite sure it’s Anything But CO2.”
Don’t put words in my mouth again. I am not sure how much is CO2 is all. I would just venture not all.
Really DSP does not care how the x axis is labelled, in milliseconds or millennia.
> Don’t put words in my mouth again.
C’mon, Richard. How many comments where you’re raising concerns about the quality of the data we have would you like me to read back to you?
“C’mon, Richard. How many comments where you’re raising concerns about the quality of the data we have would you like me to read back to you?”
I can still have those observations and either in the end come to the same conclusions as others have or have different ones. Unlike you, it seems, I do not prejudge what the data will tell me.
I just observe the data collection and processing problems I see. Which is all I have done so far.
> Unlike you, it seems, I do not prejudge what the data will tell me.
Weasel wording or not, Richard, you’re putting thoughts in my mind once again.
Here’s where you did, BTW:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-722829
Do you have science to backup that what I said is wrong or just an assumption that it is wrong because I said it?
I don’t play fetch with asshats, Richard.
You forgot hypothesis formation before grandstanding. It’s just a flesh wound. No biggie.
“You forgot hypothesis formation before grandstanding.”
So never question that data you see, Just accept it as ‘correct’. Great scientists you make.
Hypothesis require data, knowledge and observation.
> Great scientists
It’s “ninja,” Richard.
Scientists write scientific papers. Write yours.
I may well do. Until then, posting here is good enough
Good enough for the sake of Climateball and Speedoscience, perhaps.
The terms are yours and yours alone. And you appear to think it is your important task to decide how they are used.
You seem to use the word “seem” when you’re about to jab. Richard.
Neologisms are not always opaque. For instance:
seems clear enough for most Climateball players to get a fairly intuitive idea of what you’re doing right now.
Willard: Why do you think you are important?
“Barry: Do you have a percentage that they ascribe to natural or other, as yet unexplained, factors?”
RLH,
Rather than me going and copy/pasting relevant portions of the IPCC – and they would be numerous – it would be best if you checked these out for yourself, and including the uncertainties. Giving you the name and number of the chapters is good enough.
From the Summary for Policymakers, the IPCC asserts that the dominant cause of warming since 1950 is antrhopogenic. More detail on various factors you are interested in can be retrieved from those chapters.
“Rather than me going and copy/pasting relevant portions of the IPCC”
I know what the IPCC thinks. I regard their conclusions as being on the very low end of natural causes as being major contributors to the changing climate.
There are significant cyclic and non-cyclic behaviors in all the climate temperature data sources that are overlooked or deliberately ignored.
Just take a 15 year low pass filter, running mean if you can think of nothing better, and pass it over any climate temperature data source of your choice. 15 years is well short of climate at 30 years and well beyond any annual/seasonal and weather or weather relate stuff. A generic low pass filter is not tuned to any particular frequency so it will not enhance or reduce any signal that is there.
Then explain the wriggles that you see with something that is consistent over the last 100 years or so and in line with the IPCCs current views.
“Then explain the wriggles that you see”
One of the main issues in Climate Science has always been to account for the wiggles we have with CAUSES, going back to Glacial Cycles.
It seems clear that most of the slow variability can be explained with Forcings and Feedbacks:
Solar insolation, GHG, Volcanic Aerosols, Anthro Aerosols, Albedo.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iTotal_ERF.png
Nate: So your explanation of obvious cyclic behavior shown here
https: slash slash climatedatablog dot wordpress dot com slash combined slash
is what? Chance?
RLH says: I know what the IPCC thinks. I regard their conclusions as being on the very low end of natural causes as being major contributors to the changing climate.
There are significant cyclic and non-cyclic behaviors in all the climate temperature data sources that are overlooked or deliberately ignored.
Every attribution study I’ve looked at includes natural and anthropogenic attributions and residuals after attribution. Can you point to a specific study cited by the IPCC that supports your assertion?
Can you show where the IPCC has taken account of the cyclic behavior shown above?
See https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/combined/ if Roy’s filters let it though
RLH says: Can you show where the IPCC has taken account of the cyclic behavior shown above?
Yes, thanks for asking.
That’s why I’m so curious which attribution study(s) you’ve looked at that “overlooked or deliberately ignored” temperature variations.
> Why do you think
For the same reason you keep punching hippies, dear Richard.
Please answer MarkB’s question.
“Thats why Im so curious which attribution study(s) youve looked at that overlooked or deliberately ignored temperature variations.”
So you are saying that they have accounted for the cyclic behaviors discovered by a simple 15 year low pass of various climate series, in some cases going back to the 1500s?
If so, please show me where.
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/pdo/
And, if Roy’s filters let it through
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/first-post/
way back when this all started.
> So you are saying
You refuse to answer MarkB’s question, Richard.
“I know what the IPCC thinks.”
Then you don’t need me to tell you what they think. Why ask me to furnish you if you already know? Sheesh.
Look 3 posts up where I did despite your claims. You’re just such a prat.
“Then you dont need me to tell you what they think. Why ask me to furnish you if you already know? Sheesh.”
I note that neither you nor Willard actually address the observations I made as to the cyclic nature of most climate series or show where they have been addressed by the IPCC.
These are real cycles shown up by simple low pass filters, not curves fitted to the data as some have claimed. The data drew them, not me. If you see any cycles in the data then that is your problem, not mine.
Willard says: You refuse to answer MarkB’s question, Richard.
RLH says: Look 3 posts up where I did despite your claims. You’re just such a prat.
If I could offer a suggestion, you might try terminating your answers with a “.” or even “!” for those of unusual insight.
Using “?” seems to be giving the impression that you’re being evasive when asked to back up particularly loaded statements.
“I note that neither you nor Willard actually address the observations I made as to the cyclic nature of most climate series or show where they have been addressed by the IPCC.”
First of all, you quoted me complaining that you asked me to supply you IPCC information and later said you already knew what the IPCC thinks. Your reply here is a deflection.
Secondly, I’ve already elsewhere spoken about alleged cycles with you, supplied papers, made graphs. How wonderful that you’ve twice now ignored what I said.
Thirdly, the information on cycles you seek is in the 2nd of the two chapters I referenced. So apparently you don’t know what the IPCC thinks after all, and haven’t bothered to acquaint yourself with the mainstream science there.
Fourthly, I asked you if it was possible that frequencies popped out by fourier transform and other methods could be artefacts of data, and not actually deterministic of cycles/harmonics. Especially with respect to complex systems like climate.
I asked you in the same post, and again here, if there is a way to check the authenticity of such harmonics as real phenomena.
You are running with the assumption that frequencies demonstrating cyclicity in data are definitely and without question real phenomena. You don’t seem to have any wish to question that, and I wonder if that is a sound way to proceed.
“If I could offer a suggestion, you might try terminating your answers with a . or even ! for those of unusual insight.”
It is quite common practice to end contributions without a period. We are not in English class.
! is reserved for expressions of disbelief as well as ‘unusual insight’.
“Using ? seems to be giving the impression that youre being evasive when asked to back up particularly loaded statements.”
I use ? when I am asking a question rather than making a statement.
Do you contest the fact that a gaussian yearly filter does the same thing as normal/anomalies without the potential data contamination that normals bring?
Do you contest the fact that a 15 year filter will remove all of seasonal and weather related behavior and keep all of any climate signals untouched?
See. Those are both questions. Feel free to ignore them as you have continuously done so far.
“First of all, you quoted me complaining that you asked me to supply you IPCC information and later said you already knew what the IPCC thinks. Your reply here is a deflection.”
No it isn’t if the IPCC has failed to either notice or account for the cyclic behavior uncovered by simple 15 year and 75 year low pass filters.
“Secondly, Ive already elsewhere spoken about alleged cycles with you, supplied papers, made graphs. How wonderful that youve twice now ignored what I said.”
You have accounted for the behaviors so uncovered. I must have missed it. You have just denied they exist. When the data says that they do.
“Thirdly, the information on cycles you seek is in the 2nd of the two chapters I referenced. So apparently you dont know what the IPCC thinks after all, and havent bothered to acquaint yourself with the mainstream science there.”
Nothing in the IPCC work accounts for the sort of wriggles that are shown. I have read the IPCC reports. I do not think that they make sufficient allowances for natural cycles and sequences that are yet to be discovered. The unknown, unknowns.
“Fourthly, I asked you if it was possible that frequencies popped out by fourier transform and other methods could be artefacts of data, and not actually deterministic of cycles/harmonics. Especially with respect to complex systems like climate.”
A low pass filter is not a Fourier transform. It can be enacted as such but it is not here. If it is a Gaussian then it does not add distortions. It may only be in the order of a 3db/octave roll off but we are well away from climate related signals.
“I asked you in the same post, and again here, if there is a way to check the authenticity of such harmonics as real phenomena.”
I asked you to demonstrate they are not. They are not harmonics. They are wriggles. None of which are presented as pure sine waves.
“You are running with the assumption that frequencies demonstrating cyclicity in data are definitely and without question real phenomena. You dont seem to have any wish to question that, and I wonder if that is a sound way to proceed.”
The wriggles are there. In the data itself. They cannot be just massaged away by claiming they are not there.
I love it when straight lines are supposed to show ‘trends’ outside of the period that creates then, but wiggles are forbidden because they are ‘cycle mania’.
Despite the fact the Earth is a very large physical system that contains many related but poorly, directly or indirectly, connected areas in both atmosphere and oceans that are known to be cyclic or at least semi-cyclic caused by nature.
“I love it when straight lines are supposed to show ‘trends’ outside of the period that creates then”
I’ve said they don’t. To you. Another wasted comment.
“but wiggles are forbidden because they are ‘cycle mania’.”
You’re running a conversation in your head and imagining it’s the one happening here.
As I said, “You are running with the assumption that frequencies demonstrating cyclicity in data are definitely and without question real phenomena. You don’t seem to have any wish to question that.”
And your reply is to insist that I prove that these are NOT real phenomena. To prove a negative. Classic shifting of onus.
Here Dr Spencer reveals that what were plainly ‘step-ups’ in the data are actually a combination of linear positive trend and two cycles of different length.
These wiggles have been soundly misinterpreted by ‘skeptics’, who see the patterns they want to see. Look, it’s right there in the data!
“I have read the IPCC reports. I do not think that they make sufficient allowances for natural cycles and sequences that are yet to be discovered. The unknown, unknowns.”
That might be because they can’t be quantified in any way.
60-year cycles don’t account for a rising trend over twice that period. And the latest ‘cycle’ is now 50 years old and hasn’t peaked, it’s just kept right on chugging along in a positive direction.
https://tinyurl.com/dyskbdbc
Why, it’s obvious if you just look at the data!
Let’s remove any smoothing…
https://tinyurl.com/y3anhcjy
Yep, just look at that data! The last ‘cycle’ seems to have forgotten it’s a cycle for the last 20 years. We should have been on a downturn since about 2000 or just after.
I have no idea if any of that is true. I’m just letting the data speak to me. And my opinion counts just as much as any climatologist, doesn’t it?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/biased-media-reporting-on-the-new-santer-et-al-study-regarding-satellite-tropospheric-temperature-trends/#comment-727477
RLH says: Nothing in the IPCC work accounts for the sort of wriggles that are shown.
This is simply and objectively false. Attribution studies are explicit comparisons with time series data which necessarily include these components.
I have read the IPCC reports.
Sure you have.
I do not think that they make sufficient allowances for natural cycles and sequences that are yet to be discovered. The unknown, unknowns.
That there is something you don’t like about the accounting is different than claiming no accounting has been done. Maybe you could point to a specific example, critique the methodology, and we could have a coherent discussion about how it might be improved or what error margins are appropriate.
So break things down into the 4 frequency bands I have proposed, < 12 months, < 15 years, < 75 years and the rest.
Then see how much is in those individual bands. You know, standard decomposition type of work.
Not that I see the IPCC doing such simple things anywhere in their reports.
“”I have read the IPCC reports.”
Sure you have.”
You calling me a liar?
RLH,
Youve already admitted the ‘cyclic’ behavior may not be periodic.
Can you show that after Forcings are accounted for, that the remainder is significant, and cyclic?
“Nate: So your explanation of obvious cyclic behavior shown here is what, chance?”
What you are showing has two minima that look sinusoidal.
Is that due to an ongoing quasi-periodic cycle? Or is it chance?
Well given that
a. There are Aerosol Forcings that explain one, possibly both, of the minima.
b. Earlier data don’t show the same pattern
c. A new minima has failed to appear on schedule
I’d say the chances are high that chance is the culprit, yes.
Try looking at
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/biased-media-reporting-on-the-new-santer-et-al-study-regarding-satellite-tropospheric-temperature-trends/#comment-727477
in order to continue the discussion
I’ll re-quote it here in case following links is not your thing
===
There appears to be 4 broad areas of frequency analysis applicable to climate and weather.
1. Less than 12 months.
2. Greater than 12 months and less than 15 years.
3. Greater than 15 years and less than 75 years.
4. Greater than 75 years.
Any climate signal can be decomposed into those 4 sections whilst still retaining the overall response.
Not all climate data is long enough to provide all 4 sections. Some will only be able to cover 3 of them to date. That does not mean that the 4th will not be available in the future.
RLH says: So break things down into the 4 frequency bands I have proposed, < 12 months, < 15 years, < 75 years and the rest.
Then see how much is in those individual bands. You know, standard decomposition type of work.
How much what? It’s not obvious from that description how one gets to attribution from sub-banding. If you have some idea how this might be done, it’s not been expressed.
Nor is it clear what advantage this might have over, for instance, the linear regression approach used in the statistical attribution studies.
“Its not obvious from that description how one gets to attribution from sub-banding. If you have some idea how this might be done, its not been expressed.”
It allows one to concentrate on a frequency range rather than trying to do everything at once. Multiple frequencies and partial one offs are much easier to see and ascribe.
“Nor is it clear what advantage this might have over, for instance, the linear regression approach used in the statistical attribution studies.”
Why would you think that straight lines, which never occur in nature and are bounded solely to the range they cover, is the best way of examining things?
It allows one to concentrate on a frequency range rather than trying to do everything at once. Multiple frequencies and partial one offs are much easier to see and ascribe.
I was looking for some sort of a high level algorithm outline. What is it one is looking for and how does one ascribe that observation to a cause?
My previous post might have been more clear and accurate had I said, “… multiple linear regression approach used in the statistical attribution studies.” rather than “linear regression”. In either case it’s the algebra that’s linear, not the attributed components of the signal.
See, for instance Figure 10.6 from the IPCC AR5 WG1 document, which, I believe are all multiple regression study results.
That’s rather putting the cart before the horse. How can we know what we are looking for if we don’t yet know the range of frequencies that are of interest.
Looking again at IPCC AR5 WG1, I feel that they are still approaching it from an overall perspective. No attempt is made to break things down into the sort of frequency ranges that I have discussed above.
We can be fairly sure, for instance that any Lunar and Solar things will be in the >1 15 75 year bucket. As will most ocean overturning’s.
Now I know that you don’t like cycles but those appear to be the most promising that I can think of at the present
Looks like my posting has been caught up in the vagaries of this sites algorithms.
We can be fairly sure, for instance that any Lunar and Solar things will be in the greater that 1 year, less than 15 year bucket. The 11 year sun spot cycle for instance.
Jupiter/Saturn influences (if any) with their 60 year cycle should be in the less than 75 year bucket. As will most ocean overturnings.
Long term stuff like longer planetary cycles should be in the greater than 75 year bucket.
Now I know that you dont like cycles but those appear to be the most promising that I can think of at the present
Until we sort into the broad layouts first it will be challenging to see those things separately, especially if they are either low in amplitude or acting in opposition.
One can include any cyclical, pseudo-cyclical, or non-periodic driving signal (e.g. volcanoes) into a multiple regression experiment and get a measure of the correlation with that parameter. Per figure 10.6 solar has a cyclic component, ENSO is pseudo-cyclical, and volcanoes are non-periodic as actual examples included in the attributions.
In practice the set of hypothesized drivers should be physically plausible, but the math doesn’t care if you want to test the correlation of cricket scores with global temperature anomalies.
An issue with frequency domain approaches is that there is clearly a contribution that isn’t periodic and will need to be handled by some sort of regression technique anyway. Moreover it’s precisely the component(s) of primary interest in this context.
But I have already shown that there are significant wriggles of less than 15 years in the data they use in Figure TS.1 for instance.
Backed up by similar wriggles in proxy data going back to the 1450s
Sorry. Make that greater than a 15 years but less than 7 years
Damn fingers. Less than 75 years
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/combined/
Alarmists have a hard dilemma, leaving this last unmolested data set standing unopposed gives it more credibility, but challenging and attacking it will bring more exposure and visibility of the discrepancy between the fudged thermometers and the satellite measurements.
Just use to your advantage and keep pointing out the obvious.
There is no discrepancy.
The ‘discrepancy’ is a warming trend different by a few tenths of a degree per century.
It’s not much of a discrepancy.
I suppose I should be more welcoming.
Hi Nick. Nice to talk again. A lot has happened since we last met. I have translated the r and excel stuff I used to have back when I published on WUWT so long ago into c#. A language I am happier in. Still the same 12 month CTRM/Gaussian as I had back then.
The data shown above is where someone challenged me to run my code (actually it was the spreadsheet) over some absolute temperature figures created by adding back in the reference data to the anomalies on Roy’s data.
This then creates an absolute dataset for UAH and I then ran what I have over it.
As you may have noticed from the output the curve is identical (well nearly identical as it removes some of the out of ban errors caused by using 13 month running means) with that as created by Roy.
Thus proving that Gaussian/CTRM can remove the seasonal cycle and leave just the summary.
Here is how the discrepancy looks like between
– the fudged thermometers (not to forget all these even much more fudged sea surface measurements)
and
– not the satellite measurements (all of course hyperfudged except one) but rather those of UAH, isnt’ it?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VCFyZQZVc0ZjVqHqux-lNAPbAIrgpk5A/view
Thus the ‘hard dilemma’ must be located somewhere, and might well concern much more the Antialarmists aka ‘Skeptic’s than the crazy other side.
Simply because this rather unexpected correlation between UAH and the surface data provided by Japan’s Met Agency has a deep reason, namely the absence, within JMA’s processing, of any infilling of the unknown.
Thus, the real dilemma is
– either to discredit that infilling, which is used outside of climate affairs by an incredible amount of engineers worldwide, and thus to appear as ignorant and stubborn
or
– to accept that infilling, whose goal is after all to avoid that the unknown parts have the same cooling / warming tendency as the average of all known parts.
It has been shown often enough that by accident, taking that average of the known for all unknown parts results in a perceptible cooling bias.
Had the inverse been the case, so there is some little evidence that the ‘Skeptic’s would have immediately required this so much denigrated infilling to be used!
Ha ha haaah.
J.-P. D.
You would be better served by running 15 year running means/low pass filters over the data. Then you can be sure to remove all short term signals in the data and leave only climate relevant ones.
Slowly but surely, RLH’s stubborn, teachy arrogance becomes… disturbing.
Just do it and see what clarity it brings. There is a sweet spot at 15-20 years where there is little power in the frequency spectrum of climate. I am just suggesting you use that to some advantage
If you’re a sociopath with an irrepressible lust for power, terror is your friend. Feed it. Keep it alive at all costs.
hmm.
“A person living with a narcissistic personality may also share certain similarities with a sociopath. Because of this, narcissism and sociopathy are often mistaken for one another.”
“A narcissistic personality causes a person to have an excessively heightened sense of importance, a strong need to be admired, or an entitlement to special treatment. Other times, a person with this disorder may nurse dreams of wielding far-reaching power.
Having a heightened sense of self may be understood, excused evenexcept with a narcissist, pursuing the life they believe is owed to them may come at the expense of others.”
It seems having heightened sense of self is a good thing- it should encourage you to do better. Rather than shoot for average- one problem with average or equality, one tends to notice the worse of the average, so as practical thing, and because all creatures are lazy by “a good design” you effectively shoot for worse than average.
So, heightened sense of self, should tend to get you nearer to a normal or a somewhat decent human.
“The narcissist is self-centered and carries out actions using tunnel vision focused solely on their own importance. People harmed by a narcissists actions are merely casualties in their journey to reaching their own goals.
On the other hand, a sociopath will manipulate, harm, rob, and otherwise violate another person merely for the fun of it.”
https://www.verywellmind.com/the-difference-between-a-narcissist-and-a-sociopath-5181518
It seems to me sociopaths have shortage of fun, there is a lot fun stuff to do.
It seems to me narcissist and sociopaths have serious mental issues, and the above definitions is a shallow take on the serious things wrong with these people.
Problem with both is they enjoy wallowing in their crap, their therapy is getting more crap for them to enjoy.
So, prison, I guess.
But we should make prison more fun for them. Make it shorter, but have a lot more of what they really desire for fun. Ample amounts of wallowing in their crap.
But it’s not really punishment, we could charge them money for their play time or therapy. And an actual prison should be related to Justice- roughly have people sit around doing nothing for their crimes. Give a choice- job training, education, hobbies, ect. if they do little work or want it, or do nothing for free. And the sociopathic therapy type prison- with some higher price paid [money or work or “student loan debt”] for this kind of fun. It seems there probably have higher medical care costs related to this kind of fun as it’s destructive {related to sickness and death}.
Though I think easier, politically, just to end this War on Drugs.
I think it is necessary to clear up what the near Gaussian 12, 10, 8 running mean set is actually doing to the data it traverses over.
The initial data collection is that of a 12 month running mean. (I know that people say that even based running means are less preferable to odd based ones but you need to think about where the middle of the year is, in month 6 or month 7 – if you want the later then just move the output up by 1 month, don’t increase the input window to 13 instead)
This is then acted on by a further 10 and 8 month running mean passes which serves to remove the distortions that the 12 month running mean has ‘added’ to the data.
This then gives an overall 12 month wide Gaussian filter to the initial temperature data.
The 12, 10, 8 choices comes from VPs observation back in the day of 1, 1.2067 and then 1.5478 inter-stage multipliers as being ideal, reduced to the nearest integer.
For the differences between running means and Gaussian see
https://tinyurl.com/rz54rdv7
See
https: slash slash tinyurl dot com slash rz54rdv7
for the differences between running means and Gaussian filters
For those who believe that linear trends are the be all and end all of climate analysis let me ask you this.
If you were to detrend the available data with the line so produced you have a few options with what to do outside of the date range that generated the trend line.
1. You can suppose that the line extends in both directions on the slope so discovered. Upwards into the future, downwards into the past.
2. You can assume that the line flexes at both ends in opposition to the trend discovered. Downwards into the future, upwards into the past.
3. You can assume that the line goes horizontal at both ends to extend the trend discovered. Neutral for both the future and the past.
4. You can create a hockey stick with a horizontal line before the trend line and a continuation of the slope upwards in the future. Upwards into the future, horizontal into the past.
You do need to be able to defend the choice you make.
What’s going on under the equatorial Pacific? The first La Nina is over, let’s get ready for the second, in October at the latest. We could have very low tropospheric temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere this winter. I expect another year of record snowfall.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202106.gif
You are too late, allarmistas already decided there will be no second La Nina
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-718872
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-719083
The latest second LaNina prediction shows it could be even lower than the first one
You’re not allowed to claim it could be lower! That would mean that Global temperatures were not likely to rise.
“ENSO-neutral is favored through the Northern Hemisphere summer, with chances of La Nia increasing into the fall and winter 2021-22.”
Geez you’re a fuckwit, Eben. It’s not ‘alarmists’ saying the chances of a la Nina soon are small, it is the scientific institutes that monitor ENSO that are saying so.
Let’s put this together – ‘skeptics’ wish for la Nina based on their own ideas. ‘Alarmists’ link to the scientists whose job it is to monitor and project ENSO events and say, “This is what the experts say.”
Eben pretends that the ‘alarmists’ are cancelling la Nina.
Bindidon is no ‘alarmist’ and neither am I. I’ll quote Bindidon from the post you linked, as it is my own opinion, too.
“Note that I dont care about how La Nina will develop.”
You have activists, extremists and tribalists on both ‘sides’ of this debate, with the latter by far the most numerous group ill-disposed to critical thinking. You are in the latter group, on the side of anti-AGW. Grow a brain and quit looking for a stoush ya nong.
Barry: As far as I can see the majority of ENSO forecast sites have a small to large La Nina continuing into next year. YMMV
I doubt the forecast has changed since a few days ago, and you’re making that up.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/outlook/
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/outlook.html
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Yep, you spoke bullshit.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
IRI/CPC Pacific Nio
3.4 SST Model Outlook
SST Outlook: NCEP CFS.v2 Forecast (PDF corrected)
Issued: 14 June 2021
Looks like I can read correctly
Below the central line as far as the eye can see. Weak to neutral might have been a better statement.
I find
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/daily/gif/cur_coraltemp5km_ssta_large.gif
a useful guide
Let’s not fuck around.
The experts give their opinion. You are gainsaying their opinion based on your ‘interpretation’ of the charts they output.
The chart you reference has current and ongoing ENSO neutral conditions for the next few months, so how is la Nina going to “continue“, exactly?
Furthermore, the mean projections do not give a la Nina in that chart, as the period below 0.5C for NINO3.4 is too short.
So much for “the majority.” You didn’t even look that far. You spoke bullshit. I have been enjoying better from you.
I misstated that the related web sites said La Nina was back in all its glory. I did however re-state that the signal was below the line of ‘middle’ and in some cases showing weak La Nina behavior. I stand by that.
> You are gainsaying their opinion based on your “interpretation” of the charts they output.
In fairness, that’s what contrarians do best.
I am a contrarian only because I disagree with you
You’re a contrarian because you disagree with the established viewpoint, Richard. Search for “luke” on this page.
You also played Climateball Bingo squares already: But Data, But Modulz, But Predictions, etc.
Poor you. Ticking off bingo squares. As though if meant something. Probably to you it does.
See, Richard?
You’re doing it again. You get countered fair and square, and you rope-a-dope like you’re some kind of Ali.
I’m not here to knock you down. You feed my Bingo.
Thank you.
Bingo away then. Try not to tell others in important tones about how well you are doing.
Enjoy your evening, Richard.
Try to get some sleep.
Once more? OK
There appears to be 4 broad areas of frequency analysis applicable to climate and weather.
1. Less than 12 months.
2. Greater than 12 months and less than 15 years.
3. Greater than 15 years and less than 75 years.
4. Greater than 75 years.
Any climate signal can be decomposed into those 4 sections whilst still retaining the overall response.
Not all climate data is long enough to provide all 4 sections. Some will only be able to cover 3 of them to date. That does not mean that the 4th will not be available in the future.
“ENSO-neutral is favored through the Northern Hemisphere summer, with chances of La Nia increasing into the fall and winter 2021-22.”
“the majority of ENSO forecast sites have a small to large La Nina continuing into next year”
BoM: “The ENSO Outlook is INACTIVE. This means the El NinoSouthern Oscillation (ENSO) is neutral with no indication that El Nino or La Nia will develop in the coming months… All seven climate models surveyed by the Bureau suggest a neutral ENSO state is the most likely scenario for the coming season.”
JMA: “The La Nina event that started in summer 2020 has terminated.
ENSO-neutral conditions are likely to continue through to next autumn (60%).”
NOAA: “ENSO-neutral conditions are present… ENSO-neutral is favored through the Northern Hemisphere summer (78% chance for the June-August season) and fall (50% chance for the September November season).”
Please don’t be a wanker like the others on this board who seem to prefer their interpretation over the experts whose job it is to monitor and forecast ENSO, and who write the same on the websites you presumably visited before spouting nonsense.
Below the line, with some of the models showing more than weak behavior. Others neutral
Note there is not much point including models that are already shown to be false.
Pffft. I’ll stick with the expert opinion, thanks.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/biased-media-reporting-on-the-new-santer-et-al-study-regarding-satellite-tropospheric-temperature-trends/#comment-727477
I often look at
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_30day_large.gif
for some assessment of what has happened recently
A decrease in temperature in the upper stratosphere above the equator due to a decrease in high-energy UV radiation during the current solar cycle.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_AMJ_EQ_2021.png
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png
High negative temperature anomalies in Antarctica compared to the 1979-2000 average. Very low upper stratosphere temperatures over the southern polar circle.
https://i.ibb.co/Fhp2TkD/gfs-nh-sat6-t2anom-1-day.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_AMJ_SH_2021.png
The Sea Level Hoax exposed in one picture:
https://imgur.com/s2Vevqd
You will never see that graphic in any media report
You fell for another ‘with this one simple trick’ click-bait.
The various land rises are taken into account in the GMSL rise graphs.
That is nonsense. Why then are there differences? The differences fit exactly what you would expect. If it is accurate, why then are there differences between areas that are so close to each other? Tell me then, what is the sea level in some of those areas falling so sharply? How can Al Gore be that wrong?
“Why then are there differences? The differences fit exactly what you would expect. If it is accurate, why then are there differences between areas that are so close to each other? ”
Read.
There are differences and, as you can see, they are well understood and climate science is not ignoring them, CO2!
Enough with strawmen.
How bout this? Before posting nonsense, get a little informed.
See eg here:
https://sealevel.colorado.edu/presentation/what-glacial-isostatic-adjustment-gia-and-why-do-you-correct-it
They’re still building beachfront property and banks are lending.
And there are still foo!s willing to take out loans and buy such properties.
Im sure there were people saying the same thing as you in 1983 when the EPA said sea level rise would be 10 feet in several decades. How did that work out.
Dont be so gullible. SLR is going to be 3 mm/yr for decades to come. Just like it has been for 200 years.
There are areas when the land is rising. There are areas where the ocean is rising, Try hard not to buy properties near the latter.
This is a guess at best:
“Averaged over the global ocean surface, the mean rate of sea level change due to GIA is independently estimated from models at -0.3 mm/yr (Peltier, 2001, 2002, 2009; Peltier & Luthcke, 2009). The magnitude of this correction is small (smaller than the 0.4 mm/yr uncertainty of the estimated GMSL rate), but the GIA uncertainty is at least 50 percent. However, since the ocean basins are getting larger due to GIA, this will reduce by a very small amount the relative sea level rise that is seen along the coasts.”
that “adjustment” is smaller than the error of the measurements. What a joke.
Why is it a joke? Explain your thinking here.
Just take a look.
https://imgur.com/a/siHPINY
Pretty graphs do not cover the fact that you do not explain your thinking on why the GIA adjustment being smaller than the uncertainty for GMSL rate is a joke.
RLH: So we can expect things to go down in the immediate future. Got it.
Any idea how long that is likely to last?
The El Nino central projection is for low side of normal, perhaps dipping into weak La Nina territory and the satellite temeperature lags by a few months. Based only on this understanding, on an even money bet, I’d take the under trend side for a 12 month average over the next year.
Beyond that, El Nino forecasts have little useful skill.
On an even money bet I’d take the next decade being warmer than the previous, and I expect I’d have a hard time finding someone foolish enough to take that offer.
This gets boring after a while.
Someone claims to have THE alternative explanation for global warming: “it’s the Sun”, “it’s geothermal heating”, it’s volcanoes”, “it’s GIA” etc as nauseam.
Then you show them the data demonstrating that their favoured solution is far too small to explain the measured changes and they get all disgruntled.
> they get all disgruntled.
Alternatively, they go long on “But Data.”
How much more evidence do you need that CO2 isn’t the cause:
https://imgur.com/a/siHPINY
https://imgur.com/a/CDasqHH
https://imgur.com/a/IrE63Xo
https://imgur.com/a/tIg5hyS
There is plenty of evidence. What evidence do you have? 100% completely failed models and a consensus of the failed scientists that created those model failures. That is a joke, not science.
> 100% completely failed models
False: Zeke assessed models from 1970 to 2007. Their predictions fared quite well. If we look at 2019, its right in line with the old CMIP5 models.
https://climateball.net/but-predictions/
But https://judithcurry.com/2020/08/25/new-confirmation-that-climate-models-overstate-atmospheric-warming/
New confirmation that climate models overstate atmospheric warming
Ross McKitrick
Been there, done that:
https://judithcurry.com/2020/08/25/new-confirmation-that-climate-models-overstate-atmospheric-warming/#comment-924684
You claim of cherry picking did not stand peer review. Unlike the papers.
Not my claim, Richard.
And the claim you emphasized did not either.
You saying the 2 papers were not peer reviewed?
I’m saying you quoted the title of a blog post, Richard.
Which covered 2 peer reviewed papers.
Mitchell et al. (2020)
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab9af7
and McKitrick and Christy (2020)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020EA001281
as you well know
“We used 1979 to 2014, which is the longest interval for which all observational products are available and the models are forced with observed historical inputs.” Ross McKitrick
Still no claim you pretended was peer-reviewed, Richard.
I made no claim as such. Just noted what the author of one of the 2 peer reviewed papers sited said.
So it was dogwhistling all along. I guess is goes well with playing squirrels.
“New confirmation that climate models overstate atmospheric warming” is indeed the title of a blog post.
And it talks about 2 peer reviewed papers which you don’t like
Where do the papers make the claim you emphasize, Richard?
Which claim was that?
Where I was quoting what Roos had written?
“New confirmation that climate models overstate atmospheric warming”
Ross McKitrick
Have you quoted any other claim, Richard?
No you did not.
So yes, dummy. That quote. The only thing that can be called “the title of a blog post.”
God you suck.
One can claim simply by quoting others? I think you are just oversensitive on some things. Particularly where you are so easily dismissed in that actual post.
Make up your mind instead of playing dumb, Richard.
You wanna play or not?
You need it again? OK
There appears to be 4 broad areas of frequency analysis applicable to climate and weather.
1. Less than 12 months.
2. Greater than 12 months and less than 15 years.
3. Greater than 15 years and less than 75 years.
4. Greater than 75 years.
Any climate signal can be decomposed into those 4 sections whilst still retaining the overall response.
Not all climate data is long enough to provide all 4 sections. Some will only be able to cover 3 of them to date. That does not mean that the 4th will not be available in the future.
And now you’re spamming.
That’s great.
Isn’t that supposed to be your place or something, Richard?
Care to answer the point rather than avoiding it?
Ross McKitrick???
Oh C’mon.
Peer reviewed. Oh Cmon.
In the paper, the Global LT is compared 1979-2014, to the obs avg 0.15 pm 0.05 deg/C and model avg. 0.276 pm .08 deg/C
The error bars barely overlap.
But what the paper doesnt mention is that there is huge disagreement between the analysis of the LT data by UAH and RSS.
UAH has the trend at 0.11 C/dec and RSS has it at 0.19 pm 0.07 deg/C With RSS analysis, the error range of models and obs overlap considerably.
Furthermore, if they had extended the data to 2020 when the paper was written, the observations 1979-2020 would have been:
RSS 0.212 pm C/dec
UAH 0.14 pm C/dec
‘Peer-reviewed. Oh c’mon.’
Yes, but other peer-reviewed papers don’t agree..
Example:
Comparing Tropospheric Warming in Climate Models and Satellite Data
Benjamin D. Santer1, Susan Solomon2, Giuliana Pallotta1, Carl Mears3, Stephen Po-Chedley4, Qiang Fu4, Frank Wentz3, Cheng-Zhi Zou5, Jeffrey Painter1, Ivana Cvijanovic1, and Cline Bonfils1
View More
Print Publication: 01 Jan 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0333.1
“Updated and improved satellite retrievals of the temperature of the mid-to-upper troposphere (TMT) are used to address key questions about the size and significance of TMT trends, agreement with model-derived TMT values, and whether models and satellite data show similar vertical profiles of warming. A recent study claimed that TMT trends over 1979 and 2015 are 3 times larger in climate models than in satellite data but did not correct for the contribution TMT trends receive from stratospheric cooling. Here, it is shown that the average ratio of modeled and observed TMT trends is sensitive to both satellite data uncertainties and modeldata differences in stratospheric cooling. When the impact of lower-stratospheric cooling on TMT is accounted for, and when the most recent versions of satellite datasets are used, the previously claimed ratio of three between simulated and observed near-global TMT trends is reduced to approximately 1.7. Next, the validity of the statement that satellite data show no significant tropospheric warming over the last 18 years is assessed. This claim is not supported by the current analysis: in five out of six corrected satellite TMT records, significant global-scale tropospheric warming has occurred within the last 18 years. Finally, long-standing concerns are examined regarding discrepancies in modeled and observed vertical profiles of warming in the tropical atmosphere. It is shown that amplification of tropical warming between the lower and mid-to-upper troposphere is now in close agreement in the average of 37 climate models and in one updated satellite record.”
Another one:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-02520-7
I don’t think that Roy and John have ever said there was no warming.
Just that the level/slope claimed was not all down to CO2.
Still a few more months, probably only until the end of this year, might make things a little clearer.
After all, ENSO is likely to stay below the 0 line and even edge lower according to the forecasts and I think it is agreed that satellite figures, even RSS, tend to follow ENSO with a small time delay.
Time alone will tell.
“Still a few more months, probably only until the end of this year, might make things a little clearer.”
Really? A few months is going to significantly alter the decades long trends?
The data needs to wiggle below the long term-trend line 50% of the time, dont you think?
Depends on if you like LOWESS or S-G to ‘predict’ future trends that Gaussian low pass filters of <15 years will not display.
“to predict future trends??”
As you can see in the papers, linear fits to the data over ~ 30-40 y are fine to evaluate long term trends.
These are unlikely to change much via a few months more data.
“After all, ENSO is likely to stay below the 0 line ”
Here’s what RSS looks like with ENSO influence mostly ‘removed’.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iadded11.png
“As you can see in the papers, linear fits to the data over ~ 30-40 y are fine to evaluate long term trends.”
As I have said on many occasions in the past, and I thought you had agreed, linear trends tell only about what has occurred in the range covered, but tell nothing about what occurred in the past or will happen in the future.
LOWESS or S-G are accepted methods that examine data right up until the ends whereas other methods stop short.
“After all, ENSO is likely to stay below the 0 line”
Are you saying that ENSO prediction sites are wrong?
I note that RSS shows the current data as headed downwards. Do you expect that to reverse and, if so, when?
“ENSO-neutral is favored through the Northern Hemisphere summer, with chances of La Nia increasing into the fall and winter 2021-22.”
One might reasonably expect a downturn in global temperatures in the coming months, particularly in the satellite datasets, not because of recent trends in the data, but because one has some confidence in the El Nino forecast and our understanding of its effect on global temperatures.
Likewise one might reasonably expect the multi-decadal upward linear trend not because of its mathematical properties in isolation, but because one has some confidence that it is a causal response to increasing greenhouse gas.
Further one might reasonably expect a multi-decadal oscillation in global temperatures not because of its mathematical properties in isolation, but because one has some confidence that it causal response to the PDO.
The semantic game you’re playing is to apply a different standard to the linear trend component relative to properties of the temperature series on which you prefer to focus. The data in isolation is just numbers. Projections into the future are made based on our understanding of the physics that is consistent with those numbers.
“Likewise one might reasonably expect the multi-decadal upward linear trend not because of its mathematical properties in isolation, but because one has some confidence that it is a causal response to increasing greenhouse gas.”
Only if 100% of the upward trend is determined by CO2.
“Further one might reasonably expect a multi-decadal oscillation in global temperatures not because of its mathematical properties in isolation, but because one has some confidence that it causal response to the PDO.”
Which I think we have agreed is cyclic.
“One might reasonably expect a downturn in global temperatures in the coming months, particularly in the satellite datasets, not because of recent trends in the data, but because one has some confidence in the El Nino forecast and our understanding of its effect on global temperatures.”
So we can expect things to go down in the immediate future. Got it.
Any idea how long that is likely to last?
RLH says: Only if 100% of the upward trend is determined by CO2
Wouldn’t it only need to be greater than 50% over the observation period to be a positive trend?
RLH says: Which (the PDO) I think we have agreed is cyclic.
I think everyone agrees that the PDO has, within some bounds, cyclic characteristics. The uncertainty is how much that manifests in the global temperature record and how much that manifestation influences the long term trend.
“Wouldnt it only need to be greater than 50% over the observation period to be a positive trend?”
Only if the other factors do not, in the end, contribute more than CO2 does.
“I think everyone agrees that the PDO has, within some bounds, cyclic characteristics. The uncertainty is how much that manifests in the global temperature record and how much that manifestation influences the long term trend.”
But regardless that will help contribute to the ‘other factors’
“I think everyone agrees that the PDO has, within some bounds, cyclic characteristics.”
Are you saying that Shen et al does not exhibit cyclic behavior going back to 1470 after a >30 year filter is applied? As I have shown elsewhere.
“Are you saying that ENSO prediction sites are wrong?”
Nope! How bout reading what I actually posted?
In fact ENSO is a big natural short-term influence, but can’t be predicted beyond a few months out, so its specific pattern will not be in model forecasts.
The point was showing that it can be removed from the past record to see the remaining signal has a clear upward trend with brief volcanic interruptions.
> Only if the other factors do not, in the end, contribute more than CO2 does.
What I like most about Roy’s is that one learns every day.
“LOWESS or S-G are accepted methods that examine data right up until the ends whereas other methods stop short.”
The one you showed earlier ending in 2014 did a poor job.
Better, IMO, to remove known short-term noise like ENSO and fit the remainder to test GCM Models.
“The point was showing that it can be removed from the past record to see the remaining signal has a clear upward trend with brief volcanic interruptions.”
Only if the IPCC is 100% correct about CO2 being the sole or main driver of what we see.
I note that the known cyclic behavior of the ENSO is not included in any of the IPCC projections. Even though it can be shown to be so going back to the 1400s and is well know to be an influencer of global temperatures, rainfall etc.
“What I like most about Roys is that one learns every day.”
You can learn? Who knew?
Stating truism might make you feel good, Richard, but in an empirical gun fight it just makes you look silly.
The one you showed earlier ending in 2014 did a poor job.
Did I not say at the time that LOWESS and S-G can be very poor predictors of actual outcomes?
“Like LOWESS, S-G will ‘whip’ around on new data like a caterpillar searching for a new leaf. It is likely that it will follow some similar trajectory but this is an estimate, not a certainty.
Currently shows that we are over a local peak and headed downwards! That may well change so “Caution Will Robinson””
Oh, wait, I did
“it just makes you look silly”
Unlike you who always makes yourself look silly all the time
Willard says: Stating truism might make you feel good, Richard, but in an empirical gun fight it just makes you look silly.
If concluding such a battle were the objective, but if there is no ending there is no final score.
RLH says: I think everyone agrees that the PDO has, within some bounds, cyclic characteristics.
Are you saying that Shen et al does not exhibit cyclic behavior going back to 1470 after a >30 year filter is applied?
With this I’m wondering how one optimally approaches a Turing Test.
Are you saying the data does not contain what has been shown?
That ‘caterpillar searching for a new leaf’ comment came from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savitzky%E2%80%93Golay_filter#/media/File:Lissage_sg3_anim.gif
> if there is no ending there is no final score
Words of wisdom, Mark:
https://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/
Audits never end.
Willard: Go back to your cartoons
“Only if the IPCC is 100% correct about CO2 being the sole or main driver of what we see.”
Strawman alert. Nobody is, or can be, claiming 100% correctness. Nobody is claiming JUST CO2. I showed you a link to several known Forcings, esp. including aerosols.
The point is to remove natural variability, and see if remainder can be explained with Forcings.
“I note that the known cyclic behavior of the ENSO is not included in any of the IPCC projections.”
Its not periodic, so how can it be projected?
Even though it can be shown to be so going back to the 1400s and is well know to be an influencer of global temperatures, rainfall etc.
Richard: please don’t make me read that thread at Judy’s to EM.
“Currently shows that we are over a local peak and headed downwards! ”
It is like the brief cool snap we just had in my area. No one thought: ‘Thats the end of summer’.
Sure enough, it came and it went. Back to summer warming.
We had a brief cooling with the recent La Nina. This too shall pass.
Nate: “Its not periodic, so how can it be projected?”
So Shen et al are lying?
Nate: “It is like the brief cool snap we just had in my area.”
So you won’t admit that LOWESS suffers from the same sort of problems that S-G does. I, however, know the limitations to the tools I use
Nate: “We had a brief cooling with the recent La Nina. This too shall pass.”
ENSO forecast sites say it may return at the end of the year.
“Are Shen et al lying?’
No. But..
Can you tell me what Nino3.4 will be in 2 y?
Can you tell me what PDO will be in 20 y?
I doubt it. Because neither repeat with predictable intervals.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/PDO1000yr.svg/1280px-PDO1000yr.svg.png
Nate: ‘We had a brief cooling with the recent La Nina. This too shall pass.’
“ENSO forecast sites say it may return at the end of the year.”
And….?
That to shall pass.
Its summer where I live, and getting warmer by the week. But we likely will have a couple more coolish patches on the way. I hope so at least.
Why are you pinning your hopes for an end to GW on ENSO wiggles?
“Can you tell me what Nino3.4 will be in 2 y?
Can you tell me what PDO will be in 20 y?”
Call I tell you that it is very likely that the ENSO will follow similar patterns to those observed over the last few of century’s. Yes
“Why are you pinning your hopes for an end to GW on ENSO wiggles?”
Why are you so desperate to try and pin > 90% of GW on CO2?
“I tell you that it is very likely that the ENSO will follow similar patterns to those observed over the last few of century’s. Yes”
OK, then the unpredictable noise pattern will continue..
That would be a NO, you can’t predict it.
“Why are you pinning your hopes for an end to GW on ENSO wiggles?’
Why are you so desperate to try and pin > 90% of GW on CO2?”
I see the old answer a question with a question dodge.
Thus, you have no logic argument for short-term low-level cyclic ENSO noise to produce moderate level long term warming.
Where did I say > 90% on CO2?
FYI ENSO power spectrum
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hannah-Christensen-5/publication/307438904/figure/fig2/AS:670020480819207@1536756739613/Power-spectrum-of-Nino-34-time-series-black-a-observations-b-CTRL-and-c-SPPT.png
~ 2-5 year cycles
“OK, then the unpredictable noise pattern will continue..”
In a way that a >30 low pass filter shows to be as close to cyclic as any normal, non-tuned, cycle in nature could expect to be.
“That would be a NO, you cant predict it.”
That would be a yes I can predict it will be cyclic. The precise size and timing of this cycle is non-trivial of course.
“Where did I say > 90% on CO2?”
You just said that <10% was natural cycles. I think it was a lot less but I was being generous.
I suppose I should have said 'all greenhouse gasses' instead of just singling out CO2 but….
“FYI ENSO power spectrum”
Care to do that in years out to 100 years or so and lose the <95% and less than 15 years information?
So the range of 15 years to 100 years which most analysis does not cover,
See the lower half of Fig5b from Shen et al for instance
https://imgur.com/YxJgeYE
Or
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-results-of-MTM-and-wavelet-analysis-on-the-reconstructed-PDO-a-MTM-spectrum-90_fig5_251436097
“FYI ENSO power spectrum”
Care to do that in years out to 100 years or so and lose the 15 y.
You must be thinking of PDO. Not the same thing, but PDO may modulate ENSO.
With ENSO, we can clearly correlate it to Global Temperature. It has a correlation coefficient of ~ 0.4. And we can see precisely how large its effect on global temperature ~ .065*(nino3.4) K.
Whereas, can you correlate PDO to Global Temp? What is the magnitude of its effect?
ENSO is basically a cycle of storing and releasing ocean heat and is thus well known to be a short duration phenomena.
My impression is PDO may modulate it, producing periods of stronger El Ninos or stronger La Ninas.
But this is not a large enough effect to produce the GW trend, nor well correlated in time to explain the GW warming trend we have.
As Shen et al are about the PDO that is what we are discussing. Are you still going to claim that the PDO is not strongly cyclic? Despite the evidence from them that it is? See Fig 5.
“El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and its longer lived cousin, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) (Zhang et al. 1997), are the primary sources of global inter annual variability. While the ENSO is related to the interconnections between ocean and atmosphere in the tropical eastern Pacific, the PDO is a combination of different physical processes operating on different time scales, including remote tropical forcing (ENSO), oceanic thermal inertia, and atmospheric forcing in response to the Kuroshiyo-Oyashio dynamics (Newman et al. 2016)”
It is likely that if the PDO is cyclic, then its shorter lived cousin ENSO is likewise over the same timescales.
“Are you still going to claim that the PDO is not strongly cyclic?”
IDK how you define cyclic?
It has no clear periodicity. It has a ~ Gaussian distribution. Looks like random noise to me.
What is the strength of its influence on global temperature?
You can see that PDO matches some maximum ~ 0.15 K features of the temp record, but cannot account for the overall rise.
https://tinyurl.com/35frvd2m
“IDK how you define cyclic?”
As in cycles, something that comes and goes on a suitably regular basis that nature allows as to be called such.
“It has no clear periodicity. It has a ~ Gaussian distribution. Looks like random noise to me.”
So why des Fig 5 from Shen above show that it has periodicity?
“What is the strength of its influence on global temperature?”
Are you saying that it does not influence ENSO which you have already shown influences global temperatures?
“You can see that PDO matches some maximum ~ 0.15 K features of the temp record, but cannot account for the overall rise.”
Like CO2 et al has suddenly been effective since the 1980s but wasn’t before that.
‘What is the strength of its influence on global temperature?’
“Are you saying that it does not influence ENSO which you have already shown influences global temperatures?”
Again answering a question with a non-sequitur question!
So you cannot say what the strength is? It seems to be small. And ENSO modulation effect is small.
‘You can see that PDO matches some maximum ~ 0.15 K features of the temp record, but cannot account for the overall rise.’
“Like CO2 et al has suddenly been effective since the 1980s but wasnt before that.”
Looks like you are not disputing that PDO is unable to account for the overall rise.
As I explained several times but you continually try to ignore, ALL FORCINGS AND internal variation must be included to explain the T record, not just CO2.
Here, again, are the calculated Total Anthro Forcings. They do show a mid-century plateau and begin to rise rapidly in the 1970s.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/iAnthropogenic_total_ERF.png
“So you cannot say what the strength is? It seems to be small. And ENSO modulation effect is small.”
Says you. I think that it is larger than you think. And those 50-70 year know cycles don’t cause you pause for thought?
“Looks like you are not disputing that PDO is unable to account for the overall rise.”
Looks like you are unable to say it has little to no impact.
“Here, again, are the calculated Total Anthro Forcings. They do show a mid-century plateau and begin to rise rapidly in the 1970s.”
Which shows no periodicity even though major natural cycles such as the PDO and ENSO which help contribute to them and are natural wriggles definitely show some periodicity.
Are you saying that all natural things just cancel out to a steadily rising line. Almost like a hockey stick?
“Says you. I think that it is larger than you think.”
‘I think’??
Again, with ENSO, we can figure it what factor relates them. It is small .068. You can’t find that factor for PDO??
The PDOs effect in mid century appears small, and mismatches the rise before and after.
“Again, you seem to constantly forget that the 50-70 y cycle does not continue in the record.”
If it were such a cycle, it still will not explain/cause the long-term rise. And its effect is small.
Show me in this record where the 20th century behavior repeats:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/PDO1000yr.svg/1280px-PDO1000yr.svg.png
Arrggh
This:
‘Again, you seem to constantly forget that the 50-70 y cycle does not continue in the record.’
was meant to be in response to:
“And those 50-70 year know cycles dont cause you pause for thought?”
‘Here, again, are the calculated Total Anthro Forcings. They do show a mid-century plateau and begin to rise rapidly in the 1970s.’
“Which shows no periodicity even though major natural cycles such as the PDO and ENSO which help contribute to them and are natural wriggles definitely show some periodicity.”
Do you not understand what Anthro Forcings mean? They should not include natural cycles!
“Are you saying that all natural things just cancel out to a steadily rising line. Almost like a hockey stick?”
I’m saying that natural cycles, being cyclic, INDEED do cancel out in the long term!
A long term rising line obviously cannot be caused by such cycles.
Is there any other cause you have in mind that could, other than the Anthro Forcing?
“Im saying that natural cycles, being cyclic, INDEED do cancel out in the long term!”
So now there are cycles. But rather conveniently they add up to zero since 1980? Give me a break. This is like claiming that random throws of the dice add up to 3 without also acknowledging that things locally will continue to oscillate between 1 and 6.
The mean is a very poor predictor of the next throw. Or the throw after that.
“A long term rising line obviously cannot be caused by such cycles.”
So are there or are there not natural cycles that amount to the sort of things that can easily be shown as occurring in nature?
Show me where the IPCC has allowed for those things. In any way that contributes to more than 0.01% which is what I think you claimed previously.
“Is there any other cause you have in mind that could, other than the Anthro Forcing?”
Let’s wait and see how long this immediate downturn in global temperatures, which you have also agreed is likely to be the immediate outcome, lasts. For the next few months until the end of the year at least. Either you are correct and long term the figures will continue to rise. Or not, in which case some explanation will be needed.
“Do you not understand what Anthro Forcings mean?”
Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing – WG1AR5
Do you understand that Anthro Forcing’s as posed by you and the IPCC look very much like another hockey stick?
Do you also understand that you are simultaneously claiming that all natural cycles have either gone or are reduced to <0.01% in effective outcomes?
Did you even look at Fig 5 above?
“Do you understand that Anthro Forcing’s as posed by you and the IPCC look very much like another hockey stick?”
And? If thats what it is, thats what it is.
“Do you also understand that you are simultaneously claiming that all natural cycles have either gone or are reduced to <0.01% in effective outcomes?"
Again, I am not claiming any of that. WTF is your problem?
Natural cycles are not included in Anthro Forcing. You seem determined to be confused about that.
“If thats what it is, thats what it is.”
So you admit the IPCC is promoting a hockey stick?
“Natural cycles are not included in Anthro Forcing. You seem determined to be confused about that.”
No I am confused that natural cycles do not exist in the IPCC world.
And that no significant natural cycles exist that are longer than a few years, let alone ones that can last 50 years or more
“So you admit the IPCC is promoting a hockey stick?”
Anthro emissions, undeniably, have a hockey stick shape.
Lacking a scientific argument against it, you now move to a political one?
You keep bringing up “Show me where the IPCC has allowed for those things. In any way that contributes to more than 0.01% which is what I think you claimed previously.”
If you look at my posts you see that I have claimed that ENSO contributes to Global Temps.
“And we can see precisely how large its effect on global temperature ~ .065*(nino3.4) K.”
This is >> .01%
Same for PDO:
“You can see that PDO matches some maximum ~ 0.15 K features of the temp record, but cannot account for the overall rise.”
So, still trying to understand what case you are making, and what is the logic behind it?
How do you think ENSO, which adds a ~ 0.1 C oscillations, with periods of 1-5 years, can produce ~ 1.1 C warming over a century?
How do you think PDO, which inconsistently perturbs the record with maximum 0.15 C oscillations (some of which are accounted for in ENSO) with periods of 10-70 y, can produce ~ 1.1 C warming over a century?
“Lacking a scientific argument against it, you now move to a political one?”
No. I’m staying with a scientific argument.
What I find quite incomprehensible is that you can accept that +/-0.5c can occur in the recent satellite temperature record yet you (and the IPCC) say that natural cycles have no effect on what we see or will see in the future.
“you (and the IPCC) say that natural cycles have no effect on what we see or will see in the future”
Wow.
How is it what I post is totally ignored and the opposite of what I posted is causally substituted?
Clearly facts are not on your side. You’re frustrated by that, thus you are not compelled to debate honestly.
Too bad.
Obviously we are talking past each other then.
There are natural cycles to the air temperatures we see.
I characterize those as being around +/-0.5c or so.
I say I see nothing in the IPCC reports (or from you) that allow those sort of deviations from some notional ‘center line’, be that rising, steady, falling, cyclic or not.
And you say I am misrepresenting what you say?
I should add that those are just the short term cycles/uncertainties we see.
Longer term, say > 15 year stuff, is likely to be larger than that and the data on that is hard to discern but is not likely to be one way, i.e. continuously upwards, in trend as you and the IPCC seem to contend.
“I should add that those are just the short term cycles/uncertainties we see.”
Yes indeed. The only 0.5 C departures we see are at most 3 months in duration in the satellite record.
Those have no bearing on decades-long variations.
“Longer term, say > 15 year stuff, is likely to be larger than that”
Why?
“and the data on that is hard to discern”
Yep. Your claim that longer than 15 year stuff is likely to be comparable or larger is testable.
And it is not supported by the record we have.
“but is not likely to be one way, i.e. continuously upwards in trend as you and the IPCC seem to contend.”
Neither I nor anybody in IPCC is contending that your natural cycles would produce a ‘continuously upward trend’.
This makes no sense.
Truly, beachfront properties are an excellent place to live.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-52868241
I doubt that the people living in this house factored accelerating erosion into their planning.
Various parts of the East English coast have been eroding for century’s. There are other parts where the sea has receded likewise. There are portions where nothing much has happened. The later rarely receive any press attention.
See, Richard?
That is playing Climateball.
For you it may be play. For me it is about science without prejudging stuff ahead of time.
Playing is what makes us humans, Richard:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_Ludens
Unless and until you produce any scientific output, your act is all performativeness. And void of any play it’s seriously sad.
IYHO of course
Dudeism isn’t exactly serious, Richard.
I’m definitely not alone in thinking that Man plays when he is in the full sense of the word a man, and he is only wholly Man when he is playing.
Playing at science has never turned out well
IYHO, of course.
Stick to arguing with Clint R et al. It’s the sort of thing you are good at.
Look, Richard.
You were caught putting wrong ideas in my mind, whining about being misrepresented when you’re not, and completely oblivious to the concepts of play, belief, performativity, and luckwarmism.
And now you think you’re gonna tell me what to do?
If you wanna play home, you need to do better than that.
Willard: Why do you think you are important?
This is the third time you’re putting thoughts in my mind in this subthread alone, Richard.
Why this other loaded question?
Why are you still trying to flip tables when it never worked for you so far?
So many questions, so little time.
Ta.
So you are unimportant then. As I thought
You’re not very good at logic, Richard.
Next time, be more direct.
Prat (single T)
Better.
Denny, RLH
That house looks no more than thirty years old and was probably worth more than 800,000 pounds.
Are you telling me that it was built in the expectation that it would go over a cliff?
“The island’s relatively soft cliffs, made mainly of London Clay, have for centuries been slipping into the Thames Estuary, exposing internationally renowned fossil deposits.”
“On the north of the island, 124 homes and 1,000 caravans along a four-mile (6.6km) stretch are thought to be at risk in the next century. It would cost more than 25m to protect them all, engineers employed by Swale Borough Council found.”
The essence of my comment was that the hysteria for acceleration in SLR is unwarranted. It’s been the same story for the last 30 to 40 years. Predicting runaway sea level rise submersing cities (a 2003 Pentagon report) etc, etc, and what is actually happening? Those communities that have severe subsidence problems are being affected. But without any GMSLR they were destined for flooding anyway.
Keep this conversation in mind in 2050. There will be new doomsayers promising catastrophic SLR destroying cities but the goalposts will have been moved. They will have ignored the same failed predictions and ignored the 8” to 10” rise over the preceding 100 years but will promise it’s going to get worse in the next 10 to 20 years. It won’t. Just like it hasn’t in the last 50 years.
> the hysteria for acceleration in SLR is unwarranted
I too prefer when hysteria is warranted.
Denny
As usual when such disagreements, let’s go to the data. This is Colorado’s GMSL data, corrected for GIA and smoothed to remove the seasonal cycle.
https://sealevel.colorado.edu
Note the quadratic trend line.
In the first ten years from 1993 to 2003 this rise from -28 to -7, an increase of 21mm or 2.1mm/year.
In the last ten years from 2011 to 2021 it from 22 to 63, an increase of 41mm or 4.1mmyear.
You are mistaken to claim no acceleration. The rate of sea level rise has doubled in the last forty years.
“The predicted maximum spring high water heights have not altered in Poole Harbour, certainly since 1986.”
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/292782/LIT_8829_664bf3.pdf
“During the current century, global mean sea level is likely to rise between 28 and 98 cm, and increases of more than
1 m are possible (Church et al., 2013). The actual amount of sea-level change experienced at any site will differ from the
global average due to a number of factors, with vertical land motion caused by glacial isostatic adjustment being particularly
important in Canada (Chapter 2). Because vertical motion varies greatly across Canada, projections of relative sea-level
changes by 2100 range from a rise of almost 100 cm in parts of the East and West coast regions to a sea-level fall of
almost 100 cm in parts of the central North Coast region (Figure 3).
In areas experiencing sea-level rise, including most of the East and West Coast regions and the Beaufort Sea coast of
the North Coast region, its influence on coastal change will increase continuously throughout this century. Rising sea
levels will threaten the viability of some low-lying communities (e.g., Tuktoyaktuk, NT) and increase the risk of flooding and
inundation of others. For example, 40 cm of sea-level rise in Halifax by 2050 will result in extreme water levels that currently have a recurrence interval of 50 years having a much shorter recurrence interval of less than 2 years (Figure 4;
Chapter 2). Coastal stability may be greater in areas of the North Coast region where sea level is falling; however, other
climate change impacts, such as changes in sea-ice cover and associated increases in wave energy, will still impact these
coasts (Chapter 2).”
https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/earthsciences/files/pdf/NRCAN_fullBook%20%20accessible.pdf
One advantage of living on land is you live near a cliff and get a view.
That depends on how far from the sea you are. Here in Oxford, UK, the chance of a glimpse of the sea is quite low
thanks for this excellent write up.
Does the lower than predicted sea surface temperature suggests more evaporation, more energy being converted to latent heat than expected?
Wouldn’t this further suggest strengthening of water cycle efficiency?
So your explanation of obvious cyclic behavior shown here
https: slash slash climatedatablog dot wordpress dot com slash combined slash
is what? Chance?
“Chance?”
Why not? It is often possible to find cyclic patterns in randomly generated data.
The trick with stochastic data like temperature records is to identify which cycles are due to random variation and which are due to causation.
I would expect that any single cycle could be caused by random factors. More than one cycle is very unlikely to be caused by such.
See the 15 year low pass filters of climate series mentioned elsewhere.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/biased-media-reporting-on-the-new-santer-et-al-study-regarding-satellite-tropospheric-temperature-trends/#comment-727477
RLH
There is one area where cycles are generally regarded as a cause of climate change.
That is glacial cycles which are regarded as linked to variations in the timing and strength of surface heating due in turn to periodic variations in Earth’s orbit.
This is temperature variation for the last 800,000 years.
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS800katoFutureTemps01.jpg
And this is the orbital variations that are thought to produce the temperature variations.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
You might have fun matching the two.
This is temperature data for the last 22,000 years.
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
If you want to explain the last 22,000 years using cycles you need to identify the cycles involved and show that their interactions produce the observed proxy and recorded temperatures.
I can give you a head start on the orbital cycles. We have passed the Holocene Optimum orbital cycle sweet spot and should now be cooling gradually towards the next glacial period.
Cycles may be impacted by non cyclical events. A major meteor hit and/or vulcanism could potentially offset the cycles normal impact. We also need to consider that proxies are approximations only, so any observed cycle could be off several thousand years in the grand scheme of things.
Going back to 780,000 (plus/minus) years ago we have a peak, and every 40,000 (plus/minus) years going forward we have a peak with a few exceptions. Likewise, starting in 760,000 years ago we have a trough. And every 40,000 years (plus/minus), we have a another trough with a few exceptions.
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS800katoFutureTemps01.jpg
I would say based on the data, we will continue to warm over the next 20,000 years unless some external/non cyclical event occurs.
Interestingly the fit between glacial periods and Milankovich cycles is not perfect.
Between 3 million years and 1 million years ago the glacial cycle followed the 41,000 year axial tilt cycle. Since then it has mostly followed the 100,000 year eccentricity cycles. There were two long cycles about 550,000 years ago, but nothing since.
If our temperature anomalies move over 2.2C we’ll be moving outside the normal interglacial range completely. I would be unhappy to regard that as solely cycle based.
Location of land masses slowly change based on continental movement (500M to 1b year cycle) which impact ocean circulation and how solar energy is used. Suns position in galaxy is on a 220M year cycle) and sun intensity is slowly rising as hydrogen is converted to helium. Events like major meteor impacts and volcanism may also change atmospheric dynamics.
These factors most likely influence Milankovich warming/cooling cycle. The past million years still show warming/cooling tendency on about a 40,000 year cycle with few exceptions.
As far as the 2.2C moving outside normal (what is normal?) interglacial range, that will happen unless we intervene. The suns intensity will slowly increase over the next few billion years. So we have time if a warmer Earth becomes a problem. We could intervene with a space-based solar shade or just adapt as we have done in the past.
“This is temperature variation for the last 800,000 years.
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS800katoFutureTemps01.jpg”
It is said that the current average ocean surface is about 17 C.
On that picture, mean temp is about 15 C.
I would say the average surface temperature of 40% of our is about 26 C and 60% about 11 C which has average global of about 17 C.
26 times 40 = 1,040
11 times 60 = 660
1040 + 660 = 1,700
The tropical ocean surface temperature doesn’t vary much, but the tropical ocean varies because because Earth tilt varies and tropics is defined by Earth’s tilt. So talking about tropical ocean the tilt varies between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees.
And we at around 23.5 degrees in which latitude north and south that defines the tropical zone.
“Earths axis is currently tilted 23.4 degrees, or about half way between its extremes, and this angle is very slowly decreasing in a cycle that spans about 41,000 years. It was last at its maximum tilt about 10,700 years ago and will reach its minimum tilt about 9,800 years from now.”
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/
Or in 9,800 years are tropical ocean will be smallest {if defined by the tilt of Earth]
So we make it simpler by just saying tropics is always about 23.5 C or it varies, but indicating what the choice is, makes it slightly less sloppy.
But we don’t define nor is ocean surface average exactly some temperature, rather like global air temperature, it’s about 15 C, and ocean surface is about 17 C. And some feel more confident than average land temperature is pretty close to 10 C
But picture says ocean surface mean is 15 C.
Tropical ocean stays about same temperature whether glacial or interglacial period. So:
1500 – 1,040 = 460
460 / 60 = 7.667 C
Or 60% of ocean has temperature of about 7.7 C.
Which could be or colder, do you count the polar sea ice as ocean surface ocean. And do count the water below the floating ice or the top of ice [which can get quite cold].
If concerned about how affects global average surface air temperature- it should be the top of the ice.
In our interglacial period the polar sea ice is small part of total ocean surface, but this isn’t the case during some times during glacial periods. Or walking across english channel would commonly doable during glacial period.
Or depending on how count things as ocean surface temperatures it could be much colder average of 7.7 C or if just counting open water, much warmer than 7.7 C. though might about right if count water temperature under the ice- but such water is not affecting global average surface air temperature.
I make no claim as to the proportions that may be ascribed to particular factors. It is quite possible that some of them could work in opposition to others on any given timescale.
What I can say is that simple low pass 15 year filters discover patterns in a range of climate related data that needs explaining as I have shown elsewhere.
RLH
There’s already quite a literature on predicting climate from weather cycles. If you plan to publish in the field, you need to get up to speed. This might help.
Light reading. The University library should have a copy.
https://www.cambridge.org/it/academic/subjects/earth-and-environmental-science/atmospheric-science-and-meteorology/weather-cycles-real-or-imaginary-2nd-edition?format=HB&isbn=9780521820844
You should also research Camp Century cycles and Broecker’s Warning.
https://www.karmak.org/archive/2002/06/GaryHarding/broecker.htm
You should also look at
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/combined/
where various cyclic and semi-cyclic behavior can be discovered in a range of climate data by the use of a simple 15 year low pass filter.
Now I’m not sure if your authors were or are aware of those data series and that analysis.
Note this is not a presumption of presence by proposing cycles. It is a demonstration of such which requires explaining.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/biased-media-reporting-on-the-new-santer-et-al-study-regarding-satellite-tropospheric-temperature-trends/#comment-727477
I’m looking at this graph, supposedly of your purported 60-yr cycles.
https://tinyurl.com/zpc6azem
And I don’t see 2 full cycles for a start. Furthermore, the second ‘cycle’ is longer than the first and shows little sign of dipping after the overdue peak.
So we look at your second graph;
https://tinyurl.com/e8sb6zx8
Now you have a third peak and 2 cycles. The difference between the 1st and the 3rd peak is 1C. So there is a positive trend as well. Assuming the cycles are physically meaningful, which is by no means demonstrated.
There are ways to test goodness of fit. Akaike information criterion is one.
Have you done any testing for goodness of fit, and comparing different models, to see if yours has the best goodness of fit?
It is quite possible for data to produce cyclical behaviour even if the physical reality being modeled is not cyclical.
I see no evidence that you hold any skepticism for your model. You haven’t tested it as far as I can see, and you shift the onus onto others to ‘prove’ that it is NOT a real-world phenomenon.
This is ass-backwards. Curve-fitting is merely suggestive. There is much more work to be done to establish cyclicity as a real phenomenon.
It’s still striking to me that you think the global temperature data is hopelessly flawed because weather station temperature data doesn’t account for x, y, z local factors, yet you still use data you think is fatally flawed to claim there are cycles in climate.
Well there are definitely daily and yearly cycles to climate and weather. The question is how much is there beyond that.
The 15 year and 75 year cut points are as much to do with energy shown in the climate system by sweeps or other analysis as anything else.
“Im looking at this graph, supposedly of your purported 60-yr cycles.”
I do not create any wriggles that you see. That is purely data driven.
Do you not find it odd that both GISS and Had.crut show almost identical wriggles?
“Curve-fitting is merely suggestive.”
I am NOT curve fitting. Such a thing is not possible with low pass filters, especially Gaussian in nature.
You do need to account for such wriggles occurring in data going back to the 1450s though.
https://tinyurl.com/247duevd
You do need to account for such wriggles occurring in data going back to the 1450s though.
If you ever get around to updating these graphs, the scaling on Had looks to be wrong (about 2x actual) and the jisao PDO filtering seems to be mislabeled as it appears to be greater than 15 year LPF.
Past data will not change. Only new data will add to the righthand side.
Greater than 15 years low pass? >15 LP. I think they are the same
I think the scaling was correct but, even if it was not, the overall wriggles would still match in time terms.
If you’re trying to attribute “wriggles” to the PDO and showing them at twice their actual amplitude, you risk coming across as incompetent or dishonest, so it’s generally good practice to acknowledge and correct errors when they are pointed out.
Detrended HAD, filtered, with PDO
Correcting the CTRM filter lengths in previous post:
Detrended HAD, CTRM filtered, with PDO
PDO going back further to 1880 LP filtered.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ipdo_ersst_108month_low-pass_box_15yr_low-pass_box.png
Comparing to detrended Had*cr as you guys did, it clearly will be a poor match 1990.
poor match > 1990 and < 1930, assumming a 10 y shift of PDO to the right.
The long term reconstructed PDO.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/PDO1000yr.svg/1280px-PDO1000yr.svg.png
To assume the 20th century is representative is a mistake.
One can clearly see that the pattern of the 20th century was a one-off. It does not continue into the past nor into the 21st century.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/09/PDO.svg/1280px-PDO.svg.png
Overall there is a broad distribution of periods.
There appears to be 4 broad areas of frequency analysis applicable to climate and weather.
1. Less than 12 months.
2. Greater than 12 months and less than 15 years.
3. Greater than 15 years and less than 75 years.
4. Greater than 75 years.
Any climate signal can be decomposed into those 4 sections whilst still retaining the overall response.
Not all climate data is long enough to provide all 4 sections. Some will only be able to cover 3 of them to date. That does not mean that the 4th will not be available in the future.
Sea Levels are happening all over the N Hemisphere. Does the media report about it? Nope.
https://imgur.com/a/siHPINY
Ooops, that should say falling sea levels are happening all over the world.
https://imgur.com/a/siHPINY
CO2isLife
You behave exactly as dumb and ignorant as usual.
You never and never processed any sea level data.
You do no more than to show simple pictures of selected PSMSL tide gauges, which were chosen due to their negative or zero sea level trend.
I immediately saw, in the pictures, the time series for the Swedish gauge named Furuögrund:
SWE00140420 64.9100 21.2300 10.0 FURUOGRUND
which is located at the end of the Bothnian Gulf, a place known to have the highest glacial isostatic rebound factor in Europe.
No wonder: the entire Scandinavian corner was under thousands of billions of tons of ice during the last ice age, which pushed the land beneath them for meters.
Now the land rises after the ice has given way.
Other places on Earth are even worse (in Canada and Alaska), or show the inverse behavior, e.g. near Japan.
That means, CO2isLife genius, that when you compute sea level trends, you have to take the vertical land movement (VLM) into account, by using data available e.g. in the SONEL environment.
If you want to see how that factor looks for Furuögrund, take the gauge’s coordinates, and enter them in the SONEL data base…
*
Here is a graph showing you the original PSMSL data (without VLM correction) when successively moving from the end of the Bothnian Gulf to the whole North Atlantic region:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12ulz1gkkkAD4S5Y_sHIufqLeuXZm0HmO/view
Do you understand the graph, CO2 genius?
Do you understand how it would look like if VLM correction would be applied (I did never use my precious time to do it) ?
*
Oh, are you still convinced of the Moon’s rotation? Or do you suck the cock like Vournas, who now has become a gullible follower of the Flatearthers?
J.-P. D.
Bindy, you put way way way too much faith is these “scientists” and their “adjustments.” The uncertainty of a global sea level is astronomical. We have no instruments to measure the changes of the crust under the oceans. There could be huge volcanos forming that are pushing up the sea level and we would never know about it. Facts are the sea level rise is being attributed to increasing CO2 without any evidence what so ever.
1) Sea Levels aren’t accelerating
2) We have absolutely no idea how much melting glaciers contributed to the sea level increase
3) As I demonstrated, and you agree, that shifting land masses are the largest drivers of sea level changes
4) The “adjustments” are a rough estimate, within the error, and a complete joke.
5) You have absolutely no credible evidence that can identify the rise in sea level due to melting glaciers vs shifting landmasses, none. It is all guesswork.
https://imgur.com/a/kvIft1p
https://imgur.com/a/siHPINY
BTW, show me an accurate model for sea level. Show me just one that was started 30 of 40 years ago that accurately modeled the sea level increase.
If you can’t model something, you don’t understand it. BTW, your vulgur posts are completely inappropriate.
CO2isLife
” 3) As I demonstrated, and you agree, that shifting land masses are the largest drivers of sea level changes ”
This is disgusting. You are a liar.
Never did you demonstrate anything, let alone did I agree to your ridiculous, ignorant claims.
You never compared, for any given tide gauge (let alone for the 1500+ all around the world), its sea level data with the GPS-based VLM data measured around it.
You never did process any data, CO2 genius, let alone that for sea levels.
If you ever had, you would have some credibility…
And the best comes now from you:
” BTW, show me an accurate model for sea level. Show me just one that was started 30 of 40 years ago that accurately modeled the sea level increase.
If you can’t model something, you don’t understand it. ”
That IS REALLY INCREDIBLE.
All Pseudoskeptics of your kind discredit and denigrate ALL MODELS, but… you suddenly come here along and want to see a model of the reality any software engineer can show by processing public data, instead of discussing the reality itself?
Let’s stop it, you behave like a 15 year old.
Start learning how to process climate data using an appropriate software package, and come back with real results.
J.-P. D.
CO2…”Bindy, you put way way way too much faith is these scientists and their adjustments.”
It’s not faith with Binny, it’s abject ignorance.
Robertson
If there is ONE person whose main ‘property’ is ‘abject ignorance’, than that’s you.
You are the best when it comes to deliberately ignore, distort, discredit, denigrate and lie – regardless what you are talking about.
J.-P. D.
binny…”You are the best when it comes to deliberately ignore, distort, discredit, denigrate and lie regardless what you are talking about”.
Just trying to cheer you up, Binny. ☺ ☺
ICE AGE COMING SOON NEAR WESTERN US:
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/2021/06/14/heat-wave-western-United-States/1091623683737/
Part of a continent is not global. Weather != climate
Symbols != sentence.
Sentence != claim.
Claim != relevant claim.
Willard = prat
language : social art
You call that English?
0
Is that zero? Capability on your behalf or interest?
willard…”The magnitude of the heat across the western United States through the coming week will be one for the record books, according to forecasters”.
You mean the fudged records created in climate models from fudged data???
No idea what you’re talking about, Gordon.
Why have you ignored my bet on the other thread?
CO2isLife
The effect of GIA and Greenland’s gravity on Scandinavian sea levels is widely known, except by you.
Why report old news?
If it is so widely known, why is Rutgers Univerity publishing such misleading nonsense? This sea-level driven by CO2 and melting glaciers is a complete fraud.
Where is the accurate data for total global glacier melt? It doesn’t exist. Where is the data for sea level increase due to underseas volcano creation and shifting plates? It doesn’t exist. Where is the data that accurately models the global impact of all the factors that impact sea levels? It doesn’t exist. Show me one single sea-level model produced in the past that accurately modeled sea-level increase. They don’t exist.
https://imgur.com/a/siHPINY
“this is not a presumption of presence by proposing cycles. It is a demonstration of such which requires explaining.”
Your idea, your legwork.
If you get stuck, refer to Burroughs’ book.
Oh, and try to avoid Broeker’s mistake.
Done some of the leg work already – see
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/first-post/
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/biased-media-reporting-on-the-new-santer-et-al-study-regarding-satellite-tropospheric-temperature-trends/#comment-727477
The Media has betrayed all of the world. Trump was right, media lied, Democrats Lied, China lied, Acedemia lied. People died.
https://imgur.com/BNGEvo3
https://imgur.com/Ll2z29N
“Trump was right”
That Trump was right wing cannot be denied. That he was correct however is easily deniable.
Really?
Remind you of anything?
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2021-capitol-riot-sedition-hunters/
Here is the truth
https://imgur.com/0TPNzMK
History won’t look back favorably on what is happening today.
History will want to forget Trump as fast as possible. It may even succeed.
History will show that Democrats colluded with the media, academia, Federal Agencies and violent mobs to corrupt the electoral process and institute a McCartisitic campaign the greatly weakened America. Can you name a single issue that is better or will be better under Biden than Trump?
1) Threat of China increased
2) Russia not has the Pipeline they wanted
3) Hunter can continue corrupting the system
4) Iran will likely get a nuclear bomb
5) Inflation is increasing
6) Unemployment is stagnant
7) Virus looks to have come from the Lab, and covered up by Democrats
8) Jan 6th looks to be a Reichstag From job
9) Everything counts as infrastructure
10) The election bills they have will entrench single-party rule likely leading to a succession of many states
11) They want to stack the supreme court
12) They want to do away with the Filabuster
13) Democrats are trying to turn American into Venezuela
14) BLM/CRT and other movements are destroying the unity of America
15) The North Korean Student at Columbia pretty much details the truth about the left.
North Korean defector slams woke US schools
https://nypost.com/2021/06/14/north-korean-defector-slams-woke-us-schools/
Instead of relying on uncertain temperature and density profiles, perhaps the global warming models could be integrated vertically to arrive at a predicted satellite signal, which could be unambiguously compared to the actual signal?
The Santer paper (2021) has already been posted by alarmists in another thread in Roy’s blog. I pointed out that Santer and the co-authors read like a who’s who of climate alarmists. Unfortunately Mears and Wentz of RSS are now in that camp.
The other name that stands out is Susan Solomon, a poobah at the IPCC. She was asked by McIntyre and McKitrick to investigate the shenanigans going on in Mann’s hockey stick. At first she refused but after more complaints by M&M she relented and ‘ordered’ Chapter 9 to investigate. Naturally, they ignored her, all of the scumbags being friends of Mann.
Solomon did not insist and since then I have regarded her as yet another cheating IPCC lacky. I have always regarded Santer as a clown, although nowhere near the clown represented by Mann.
The paper is not worth the paper it is written on. A load of alarmist cheaters. And yes, that is an ad hom, albeit to the point.
entropic…” Someone claims to have THE alternative explanation for global warming: its the Sun, its geothermal heating, its volcanoes, its GIA etc as nauseam.
Then you show them the data demonstrating that their favoured solution is far too small to explain the measured changes and they get all disgruntled”.
***
What data?
Was GIA a typo? Did you mean LIA, as in Little Ice Age? There is plenty of data and actual historical writing about the LIA that revealed it was a global event in which global temperatures were 1C to 2C below normal. The extent to which glaciers advanced during that 400 years period was measured and some caused disaster by wiping out alpine villages.
That kind of cooling would remove CO2 from the atmosphere, lower sea levels, and increase the length of glaciers.
No one knows what caused the LIA but the fact it coincided with two major solar events suggests strongly that solar input was compromised. Naturally, it takes time to recover from an event like the LIA, estimated by Syan Akasofu at about 0.5C per century.
During that time, glaciers retreated and sea levels rose, yet that has been blamed ingenuously on gases making up no more than 0.3% of the atmosphere. Where’s the data for that sci-fi?
Here you can see once again (once in a thousand times) how ignorant this ridiculous Robertson is and how bold and brazen he behaves.
He is not even able to search for what others write about: glacial isostatic adjustment.
J.-P. D.
I can’t laugh when I see Robertson writing
” Solomon did not insist and since then I have regarded her as yet another cheating IPCC lacky. ”
” A load of alarmist cheaters. And yes, that is an ad hom, albeit to the point. ”
Because ad homs are for Robertson something like an essential mental nutriment. He is literally married to such behavior.
*
And how he comes to such disgusting ad homs you can easily see here:
https://tinyurl.com/uz3kjcfs
This is the original, Latin text of Newton’s Principia Mathematica (Book III, Prop. XVII, Theor. XV).
It has been wonderfully translated into English by Andrew Motte (and later on into French by Emilie du Châtelet).
*
Last year, Robertson tried to compare the Latin text with Motte’s superb translation.
Robertson is such an ignorant dumbass (and yes, that is kinda ‘counter ad hom’) that he didn’t distinguish the main text from the foot note, and thus read, moving from page 51 to page 52, something like
” … et Saturnum circà axem diebus 27 1/2 circiter… ”
what he of course did not find in Motte’s translation.
Instead of trying to read correctly, Robertson’s immediate claim was that Motte would have failed in translating Newton correctly!
His reaction:
” In other words, Motte was a cheating SOB. ”
*
Thus, when you see Robertson’ name callings like ‘cheating’, ‘cheater’ etc, you know what it is worth: less than a dog’s poop.
J.-P. D.
There appears to be 4 broad areas of frequency analysis applicable to climate and weather.
1. Less than 12 months.
2. Greater than 12 months and less than 15 years.
3. Greater than 15 years and less than 75 years.
4. Greater than 75 years.
Any climate signal can be decomposed into those 4 sections whilst still retaining the overall response.
Not all climate data is long enough to provide all 4 sections. Some will only be able to cover 3 of them to date. That does not mean that the 4th will not be available in the future.
To make it simpler, a Gaussian (or Gaussian like) filter can be applied at 12 months, 15 years and 75 years, with the output at each stage removed from the input signal to each stage to provide the required bandpass functionality.
ICE AGE COMING SOON NEAR DENVER
https://www.cpr.org/2021/06/14/colorado-weather-record-heat-smoke/
What a shame it tells us little about climate. American English recorded history is so short.
Right on, Richard.
Because it tells us little, it tells us nothing.
I don’t say it tells nothing, but it certain tells us nothing prior to 1880
I didn’t say “ICE AGE COMING SOON” to talk about the past, Richard.
Well, I do hint at previous contrarian comments, but that’s not what I’m talking about right now.
An Ice age would a lot further back in the past than the founding of the City I suspect
I doubt we can go back in time, Richard.
Stop being an asshat.
Who’s the asshat is definitely up for discussion
In that case it’s you without contest, dear Richard.
That’s not even up to debate, but think about what such a debate would imply.
Moar Speedoscience, perhaps?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/biased-media-reporting-on-the-new-santer-et-al-study-regarding-satellite-tropospheric-temperature-trends/#comment-727477
See, Richard?
That is peddling.
You really are discovering all the Climateball tricks!
And you prefer not to deal with real science.
See, Richard?
That is Speedoscience!
And you are just an idiot. An intelligent idiot maybe, but an idiot none the less
Thank you for the kind words, Richard, but I lost interest in what you got to sell a long time ago.
Too slow. Too clumsy. Too dishonorable.
Why then do you respond to everything I post?
No I don’t, dummy, and you’re the one replying here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/biased-media-reporting-on-the-new-santer-et-al-study-regarding-satellite-tropospheric-temperature-trends/#comment-727661
A simple comment about how 1882 is not that long ago turns into a diatribe from you.
You responded to me, Richard.
I responded to you.
Get used to it.
Oh, I am
GFY
That has many meanings, most of which are impolite.
Pardon my French, Richard, in which all elegance of mind and manners is banished.
You have a mind?
Yes, but no U.
Yes but, no but.
“In September 1881, the former Ute Indian Territory was abolished and the Utes forced into a reservation so that the U.S. government could open the area to white settlers. Clinton County, Pennsylvania-born George Addison Crawford (182791) soon purchased a plot of land. On July 22, 1882, he incorporated the town of Grand Junction and planted Colorado’s first vineyard near Palisade, Colorado, causing the area to become known as the Colorado Wine Country.”
Look! Squirrel!
You talking to your squirrel friends again?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Squirrel!
Are you trying to distract me? Won’t succeed.
Here’s the squirrel, Richard:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/biased-media-reporting-on-the-new-santer-et-al-study-regarding-satellite-tropospheric-temperature-trends/#comment-727741
Please desist.
Just pointing out that 1882 is hardly history really.
Just throwing squirrels is hardly anything in general, Richard.
You North Americans. Anyone would think you had been around a long time. I used to live in a cottage in the Cotswold’s that was older than your nation.
Africans always look at Euros with amusement when they brag about that kind of thing, Richard.
Pity they didn’t have thermometers then. It would make climate discussions much easier.
A pity you can’t doubt the accuracy of all the thermometers that do not exist, Richard.
Oh the thermometers may well be accurate, the people who make the stats from less so.
Unless they’re called Ross and John, in which case they are.
Unless you hadn’t noticed, I have very few favorites and very few I dismiss out of hand.
If I could not care less about your bragging rights, dear Richard, chances are I could not care less about your bragging either.
I am intrigued by your need to post something whenever I post someting.
See for yourself, Richard:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/biased-media-reporting-on-the-new-santer-et-al-study-regarding-satellite-tropospheric-temperature-trends/#comment-727477
There appears to be 4 broad areas of frequency analysis applicable to climate and weather.
1. Less than 12 months.
2. Greater than 12 months and less than 15 years.
3. Greater than 15 years and less than 75 years.
4. Greater than 75 years.
Any climate signal can be decomposed into those 4 sections whilst still retaining the overall response.
Not all climate data is long enough to provide all 4 sections. Some will only be able to cover 3 of them to date. That does not mean that the 4th will not be available in the future.
(so you don’t have to follow the link)
You posted that here, there:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/biased-media-reporting-on-the-new-santer-et-al-study-regarding-satellite-tropospheric-temperature-trends/#comment-728162
And there:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/biased-media-reporting-on-the-new-santer-et-al-study-regarding-satellite-tropospheric-temperature-trends/#comment-728165
It does not belong here.
Here, you’re supposed to acknowledge that there are comments from you on which I don’t comment, in contradistinction to what you’re intimating.
Wacko Wee Willy,
You are not as important as you believe.
You are just another anonymous idiot.
MIKE FLYNN!
\o/
“Here, youre supposed to acknowledge that there are comments from you on which I dont comment”
No, I figured out you just don’t follow links and therefore don’t post in response.
“You posted that here”
Does that make it any less correct?
That makes you irrelevant, Richard.
I thought we had agreed that you were the irrelevant, not even funny, one.
You have more energy today, Richard, for you sound like a guy who wants to play Climateball out of a sudden.
In this subthread, “your” “analysis” is indeed irrelevant.
Whereas you are irrelevant all the time
That’s where you’re wrong, dummy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/biased-media-reporting-on-the-new-santer-et-al-study-regarding-satellite-tropospheric-temperature-trends/#comment-727661
That’s what I said, irrelevant
No U.
U turns are forbidden in lots of places
If only there was a cop at Roy’s, Richard.
Why not ask him to be the One?
Well you’re not cut out for it for sure
You really can’t get enough of No U’s, Richard.
Dunno if you are an English resident Entropic Man, but that post about the Kent coast shows you do not really know about this, & perhaps should delete to avoid embarrassment.
Everyone knows the British Isles are tilting – there are villages under the north sea (which got swamped 500yrs ago & still had parliament mps in the 1800s despite no longer existing – called ‘rotten boroughs’). On the west coast, the castle of Harlech was built on the sea & is now quite inland – at least 1/2 mile.
Everyone knows this in the UK – hence properties on the east coast are next to impossible to insure or mortgage.
Nothing to do with climate change.
Whereas ports on the South coast are mainly where they have been for century’s.
IIRC Harlech and the old ports like Romney lost their coastal access because of sedimentation, not GIA.
Kent council seem quite worried about future flooding.
https://www.kentlive.news/news/kent-2050-parts-county-could-3764999A
So do the geologists.
https://www.pnas.org
If GIA is lifting Southern England, it doesn’t seem to be reducing erosion.
The point was that your story about coastal erosion in Kent was more to do with currents than it was to do with rising sea levels. As just about everybody in the UK knows.
“Some should look to albedo. Venus reflects way more light than Earth, so they should be at near the same temperature.
Whats the diff?”
There are two main differences in the evolution of Venus and Earths atmospheres imo.
#1 Venus’ atmosphere never cooled enough to have rain touch its surface, and therefore the surface remained hot and thin.
#2 an abundent supply of O2 on Earth (life)
Anyone who thinks Venus has been heated UP to its current temp by the Sun is entertaining a fantasy
PhilJ,
Agreed. And anyone who thinks the Earth has been heated UP to its current temp (or even 255 K) is similarly deranged.
Fantasists all. Climate crackpots.
Sure. Ice didnt cover Manhattan 20,000 y ago..
Deniers declare the darndest things!
Just because it happened in the past does not tell us if, or when, it will happen again in the future.
rlh…”Poor you [Willard]. Ticking off bingo squares. As though if meant something. Probably to you it does”.
***
Willard is not only a graduate of the Barnum and Bailey Circus Clown School he is a graduate of the skepticalscience School of Climate Tomfoolery.
Part of the curriculum of the latter is dressing up in Nazi uniforms and doing a few Sieg Heils. The leader claims to be a science graduate but it has been revealed he could not make it in that field and had to become a cartoonist.
They are a classy [/sarc off] lot and Willard fits right in with their credo. In a pathetic attempt to divert the attention of uninformed readers he has developed climatebull, as a meaningless exercise in cliamte bs.
https://www.c3headlines.com/2015/07/john-cook-of-univ-of-queensland-skeptical-science-ss-does-identity-theft-of-lubo%C5%A1-motl-a-theoretical.html?asset_id=6a010536b58035970c01b7c7b378c1970b
https://australianclimatemadness.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/lubos_motl_skeptical_science1.pdf
I note that both ‘sides’ make claims on climate that cannot be supported by the facts.
The truth is more likely that some of what each claim will be turn out to be true, but neither side is fully correct in the end.
> he is a graduate of the skepticalscience
No he isn’t, Gordon.
Nice try.
Oh, and Gordon, speaking of sock puppets, two of your friends here are socks.
Also, a blast from the past:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2016/02/nigel-persaud-dons-his-eyeshade-and.html
I’ll let you work out who’s that Nigel.
Why is it that given that Earth’s climate has regular cyclic inputs on daily, monthly, annually, 11 years, 60 years and longer basis, everybody is so adamant that doing a normal frequency deconstruction of 12, months, 15 years, 75 years and longer is considered so extreme?
It’s not the cycle analysis that’s the problem.That the climate shows cycles on all timescales from 12 month seasonal cycles up to 100,000 year glacial cycles.
It’s your subtext that 1.2C warming since 1880 can be explained by them that worries us.
But the whole point is that I do not prejudge what this analysis may or may not show.
You are trying to ignore what it may show because you might not like what it does show.
It maybe that adding together apparently otherwise unrelated cycles may explain why since 1980 some cycles have ‘disappeared. It may not. Either way, you need a solid explanation why things are happening is such a short timescale regardless of cause.
Remember Broeker? He analysed the Camp Century ice core temperature data and found that they might be explained by an 80 year and an 180 year cycle reinforcing and cancelling.
He noted that a maximum was due to occur in 2000 and in 1976 published Broeker’s Warning. He forecast a warming period up to 2000 and cooling thereafter.
He was half right. The warming occurred as forecast, but instead of cooling the climate continued to warm.
In retrospect he made two mistakes. He assumed that the local cycle scaled up worldwide. He assumed that the cycles were the dominant driver of modern climate. If they exist, they are clearly not.
As Burrough’s book emphasised, using cycles to explain glacial cycles works, more or less. Attempts to explain Holocene and modern temperatures have mostly failed and the technique has become discredited.
Not bias on our part, but past experience in the field. Feel free to make your case for cycles as climate drivers, but be aware that others have preceded you and failed.
“He assumed that the local cycle scaled up worldwide. He assumed that the cycles were the dominant driver of modern climate. If they exist, they are clearly not.”
Assuming local scales to global is a big mistake without confirming other data to show it is so.
Well we can certainly assume that the daily/yearly cycle drives climate. Beyond that the effects likely to be small in magnitude. That makes ascribing tricky to say the least.
“daily/yearly cycle drives climate. Beyond that the effects likely to be small in magnitude. That makes ascribing tricky to say the least. ”
Agreed. I can accept “years of the jackpot” when the warm phases of several cycles reinforce each other and you get extra warming for a few years.
What I find difficult is to reconcile 140 years of ongoing warming with your cycles.
What I find it hard to do is come up with acceptable functions that only operate since 1980 or so.
Some cycles have boundary conditions.
Perhaps we crossed a temperature threshold into conditions in which the cycles you saw no longer operate.
The Earth is a big physical system with short and long term behaviors. Very few of those will disappear completely.
RLH says: But the whole point is that I do not prejudge what this analysis may or may not show.
It’s not at all clear what analysis you’re proposing. You’ve made clear that Step 1 is to decompose the time series into four frequency limited time series, but you haven’t indicated what Steps 2 and beyond might involve.
If it makes it easier to explain by example, consider the Pinatubo eruption which is generally accepted to have depressed global temperatures around its period of activity. How would a one time event such as this be detected and attributed in your proposed process?
Similarly how would a long term trend driver be attributed and differentiated from other components?
” Steps 2 and beyond might involve.”
Step 2. Note the major frequencies so discovered in each frequency band.
Step 3. Ascribe appropriate cyclic phenomena to those frequencies.
Step 4. Define any trends not so accounted for to other phenomena.
Step 5. Show how those phenomena could operate on the timescales required. c.f. since 1980.
Step 6. Wait for later data to confirm or reject any conclusions made so far.
“How would a one time event such as this be detected and attributed in your proposed process?”
Refer to any DFT/DTFT text book on how to deal with single pulse behavior
e.g.
https://www.princeton.edu/~cuff/ele201/kulkarni_text/frequency.pdf
There are other anthropogenic effects than CO2.
The wartime increases in production produced increased aerosol levels and increased albedo. That would be expected to reduce the rate of warming. In the late 1960s pollution control measures reduced albedo and the warming rate increased Around 2000 China and India both industrialised, albedo increased and warming slowed.
Slower warming from 1940, faster warming from 1970 and slower warming from 2000.
Could your 60 year cycle be a pseudocycle induced by variations in aerosol pollution?
Refer to any DFT/DTFT text book on how to deal with single pulse behavior
Pulses are spectrally broadband. Post filtering they will show up as ripples in the sub-bands, which is to say the process has created an appearance of periodicity where it doesn’t really exist.
Didn’t even have to look that up.
So you should have no problem with dealing with single pulse behavior then. Although the theoretical effects are out to infinity, in reality they rarely extend beyond 5th harmonic (or even 3rd) before they drop below noise.
“Could your 60 year cycle be a pseudocycle induced by variations in aerosol pollution?”
Back to the 1450s?
See https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/biased-media-reporting-on-the-new-santer-et-al-study-regarding-satellite-tropospheric-temperature-trends/#comment-728495
Entropic man says: Could your 60 year cycle be a pseudocycle induced by variations in aerosol pollution?
My understanding of the leading hypothesis for apparent 60 year cycle is something like the following:
1) Temperature depression driven by a period of high volcanic aerosols and low solar activity in the early 1900s.
2) Incomplete compensation for artificially high WW2 era sea surface temperature measurements.
3) Temperature depression driven by high levels of anthropogenic aerosols in the 1950-70 post WW2 boom prior to the environmental movement.
Which is to say there is a more than plausible but less than certain hypothesis for the 60 year cycle not being a 60 year cycle.
Less than certain because aerosol impacts are significantly uncertain and increasingly so going back in time.
See above for the observed cyclic behavior being present since 1450 or so
RLH says: So you should have no problem with dealing with single pulse behavior then.
The point isn’t that it couldn’t be done, the point is that it’s advantageous to evaluate non-periodic phenomena in the full band time domain. Moreover there are perfectly adequate methods to consider periodic phenomena in full band time domain multiple regression analysis. Which, of course, is why competent people approach this problem as they do.
Realistic people also know that theoretical series fall below the noise floor after a while, dependent mainly on the height of the pulse and its width.
You still haven’t answered why others have failed to notice the periodicity in the PDO going back to the 1450s (Shen et al). Which reinforces the wriggles in the GISS, etc., which show the same thing more recently.
“doing a normal frequency deconstruction of 12, months, 15 years, 75 years and longer is considered so extreme?”
Who is saying that? No one.
Its the results of that analysis that are at issue.
If you filter between 15 and 75 years and find noise meandering around in that range then…what?
First show you have unexpected noise that swamps anything else in a given frequency band. Then try and resolve it.
You cannot say ‘we won’t try something because it might produce problems’ without looking like a luddite
For those who always think “It’s so simple after all, why not doing it?”
Here is an example of how complex seasonal and interannual cycles & variabilities can be, and how correspondingly complex it can become to detect and then to remove them:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/24/23/jcli-d-10-05028.1.xml
*
In my native tongue we love to say:
” Rien n’est simple, tout est compliqué. ”
Et pour me faire plaisir, j’ajoute:
” Cela vaut en tout premier lieu pour la rotation de la Lune autour de son axe polaire! ”
J.-P. D.
It is to try and reduce that inherent complexity that I have suggested reducing the problem by introducing 1 year, 15 year and 75 year as cut points for frequency analysis.
Does anyone have a regional or sub-regional clustering of USCRN stations? I have tried both k-means and DBSCAN and either I cannot find the right parameters or they do not produce what I want.
I would like a 10 to 12 grouping of the 114 stations into regions. This can either be by manual or automatic selection.
When I have some idle time on evening@UTC+2, I’ll generate the distribution of the the GHCN daily stations flagged CRN over UAH’s 2.5 degree grid.
You might then cluster the cells together according to your needs.
Just USCRN really. But I’ll take a wider set that can be reduced to that.
I already have the lat, long of each station. What I want to do is cluster them into regions. 10 or 12 in total
From this
https://www.n c d c.noaa.gov/c r n/map.html
Then I don’t understand your problem in clustering stations dur to their lat/long coordinates.
But I don’t wonder about that when I see your somewhat stubborn reply above:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/biased-media-reporting-on-the-new-santer-et-al-study-regarding-satellite-tropospheric-temperature-trends/#comment-728464
Wonderful, I don’t need to do work I considered useless anyway.
It’s about partioning the whole set into sensible smaller regions. A common problem in computing.
” Its about partioning the whole set into sensible smaller regions. ”
This has no influence on computing anything out of them, unless you weight these regions – regardless their size – according to the number opf stations located within them.
This, Mister RLH, is done since longer time using the concept of area weighting.
But it does allow one to tease out any regional differences. Which is why it used normally
” Which is why it used normally ”
You are just doing no more than to boast your pseudoknowledge, like all people who deny lunar spin on this blog.
Sure. Regional differences are of no import. Like partitioning something into separate sub-sections is not useful either.
I have already done it by eye. I was hoping for a more impartial methodology. Such as k-means or DBSCAN.
Bindidon can’t speak intelligently about lunar spin, so he must resort to trolling about the issue.
Pup can’t dance, otherwise he’d have done the poll dance experiment a long time ago.
Wrong sort of Poll
NEXT ICE AGE NEWS:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/148430/heatwave-scorches-the-middle-east
It gets hot in the desert in Summer time. Who knew?
Minimization is one step away from denial, Richard.
Well done!
Exaggeration is one step away from lunacy
Once again you exaggerate, Richard.
I didn’t post that the desert getting hot in summer would lead to the next ice age.
There can be heat waves even in deserts, Richard.
At least own what you’re doing.
Winding you up? Tick tock
No, Richard.
Minimizing.
Right before denial.
De’nile. Is that in Africa?
Not according to Mark, no.
The Egyptians, for one, will be unhappy
Let them drink sake.
You mean saké?
Let’s keep it Roy’s safe.
Roy’s parser doesn’t do foreign accents
” It gets hot in the desert in Summer time. Who knew? ”
I think the most knowledgeable commenter might be the CO2 genius.
But… he would never understand that in Northeastern Siberia and Antarctica, it’s so cold during the winter that in such places, UAH’s absolute data plot is literally inside of that of the surface data (anywhere else, it’s far above it, of course).
J.-P. D.
Who knew that water vapor has a habit of freezing below zero degrees Celsius.
From this
https://www.n c d c.noaa.gov/c r n/map.html
Grrrrand Cooooling ahead!
I can’t look into
https://www.kpvi.com/news/national_news/record-breaking-temperatures-recorded-across-wyoming/article_f5b42b5e-7197-52cc-98df-64cee6f52978.html
due to http exception 451 ( Unavailable for legal reasons).
But from the news in Germany I hear that in Idaho and Wyoming, temperatures are now reaching 50 C.
Ha. Here, as I wrote recently, ‘sumer is icumen in’ in our region after an endlessly cool spring.
But here, summer came … with 30 C.
J.-P. D.
We’re only in June!
Entropic Man
I dont even know where to begin with your attempt to justify your wildly misleading post about the Kent erosion. Then trying to deny what is well established about our east coast.
I must say such desperate actions to defend a minor mistake make me doubt everything you say past or present.
Sad.
Mike Freeman
I lack both time and motivation to follow this in fact interesting discussion.
In which direction – yours or Entropic man’s – do the following contributions tend?
– https://archmanche.maritimearchaeologytrust.org/uploads/images/Documents/Technical_Report_Section_3B.pdf
– http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/content/articles/2008/08/21/south_east_coastcrisis_s14_1_feature.shtml
I intentionally chose these two out of a lot because they were written before alarmism replication by media became dominant.
J.-P. D.
Well the first is an academic study. The second is written by a journalist
Testing
Finally. This bloody site keeps locking me out!
You are mistaken about Harlech Castle. GIA did not lift it away from the sea, a sand spit formed in front of it.
https://www.discoveringbritain.org/activities/wales/viewpoints/harlech.html
Re-read my Kent News link. It specifically discusses a study on the effect of future sea level rises.
They aren’t the only ones.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/thames-estuary-2100-te2100
https://www.carbonbrief.org/risk-and-uncertainty-calculating-the-thames-barriers-future
Past changes in Kent were current and wave action related. Future erosion and flooding will n increasingly climate change related. A combination of increased storminess, increased rainfall and increased sea level.
Why so rude? You are reacting very emotionally to the possibility that I might be right.
“The high water mark at London bridge has gone up by over 1.5 metres since 1780, while the south of England is slowly sinking. Scientists expect parts of southern England, Wales and southern Ireland to sink by up to five centimetres this century as a result of changes from the last ice age. All of that adds up to greater flood risk.”
A ropadope.
Sinking coastlines due to Global Isostatic Adjustment and rising Global Mean Sea Level, both raising relative local Southern English local sea level in years to come.
One positive. We are close enough to Greenland that the gravitational attraction of its ice sheet has already raised our sea level further above the geoid.
As the Greenland Ice sheet melts, some of the relative UK sea level rise due to ice melt will be offset by the reduction in its gravitational attraction.
The point was that sea level changes in Southern England are as much, if not more, to do with the land sinking rather than the sea rising.
The nearest station to Kent I could find was Brussels, showing a relative sea level rise between 2mm and 4mm/year.
https://www.psmsl.org/products/trends/index.php
Is that likely? It is fun to break such numbers down.
First GMSL. From the Colorado data corrected for global GIA and seasonal variation the quadratic fit gives a rise of 4mm/year over the last decade.
https://sealevel.colorado.edu
The GRACE data shows Greenland losing 500 cubic kilometres of ice/year.
The rule of thumb is that each mm of sea level rise is due to an extra 360 km^3 volume. Thus the ice melt from Greenland contributes 500/360=1.4mm/year to GMSL.
This is cancelled by the gravity effect, giving a net contribution from Greenland of -1.4mm/year.
Local GIA for Brussels is sinking the land by 1.5mm/iving giving a sea level rise contribution of 1.5mm/year.
Put them together:-
GMSL 4mm/year
Greenland -1.4mm/year
GIA 1.5mm/year
Net change in relative sea level 4.1mm/year.
Contribution of Southern UK GIA to UK relative sea level rise
1.5/4.1*100 = 37%
“The UK land surface is tilting, with Scotland rising and southern England sinking, such that greater rates of sea level rise will be experienced in the south of England.”
https://www.ntslf.org/products/sea-level-trend-charts?name=Aberdeen+II&freq=annual
Have any of you listened to the story of Yeonmi Park? She is the North Korean defector who attended Columbia University. She describes the leftist “utopia” of North Korea. North Korea has achieved the equity for which leftists yearn. In North Korea the masterminds are in charge. They have eradicated almost all capitalism. Our leftists should go there.
Still waiting for your photos of Sierra Leone, Stephen.
And here’s leftist number one, quipmaster Williard, sociopathic leftist that he is. You want us to know what it’s like to be hungry every day? Now we know from Yeonmi. Why don’t you tell us how great it is to be hungry every day? -you sociopath.
Here’s our Freedom Fighter, who has been fooled by teh Donald because he’s a selfish asshat, and might be fooled again:
https://thediplomat.com/2014/12/the-strange-tale-of-yeonmi-park/
But to answer your question, yes I do.
They couldn’t be true, could they? North Korea is such a leftist utopia. Little Kim isn’t missing any meals.
The best way to be true is not to tell porkies:
Nobody needs a YT star to know that North Korea isn’t the coolest place on Earth to be.
Not to tell porkies helps being true:
I don’t need no YT star to tell me that NK isn’t the coolest place to be.
God I hate Roy’s parser.
That we can agree on
>I don’t need no YT star to tell me NK isn’t the coolest place to be.
And yet, your first inclination is to discredit her. You’re a leftist and NK is the pinnacle of leftist ideology.
I don’t care much about her, Stephen.
I care about discrediting you.
Nothing personal.
For WILL ET AL, they revel in the ultimate in progressiveism. NK is nirvana. Never mind the people have no freedom or liberty. Never mind they have to be careful their 3 year old doesn’t rat on them. It’s the utopia of a utopian society. After all, it’s not about the individual. It’s all about society. Long live Fat Boy.
You failed.
So you say.
I’m objective. You’re a leftist propagandist.
There’s nothing objective about being a reactionary, Stephen.
That just means you’re getting old, and want kids to stay off your lawn.
Some North Americans shoot people for that sort of infringement.
Old Brits scream “No U” instead.
Are you British?
Another No U fer ye, Richard.
Concerning this layman discussion about sea levels in Kent
There is only one PSMSL tide gauge with RLR (Revised Local Reference) data going back far enough:
255; 51.114389; 1.322667; DOVER
There are some others (Herne Bay, Deal with RLR, but starting after 2000; Margate, Ramsgate without RLR data).
Here is the Dover entry in the SONEL DB, within which gauges and satellite altimetry are compared:
https://www.sonel.org/?page=altimetrie&psmslId=255
Have a look at it.
Unfortunately, in the SONEL VLM velocity table
https://www.sonel.org/IMG/txt/vertical_velocities_table-4.txt
there are no locations available for any gauge in the Kent region.
So the Dover data is useless because you don’t know exactly how the land around the gauge really behaves.
J.-P. D.
https://www.ntslf.org/products/sea-level-trend-charts?name=Dover&freq=monthly
The extremes have hardly shifted since the 1960s
Are you so stubborn?
I repeat:
” Unfortunately, in the SONEL VLM velocity table
https://www.sonel.org/IMG/txt/vertical_velocities_table-4.txt
there are no locations available for any gauge in the Kent region.
So the Dover data is useless because you don’t know exactly how the land around the gauge really behaves. ”
Your plot tells us NOTHING, like does that I can easily generate out of the raw PSMSL data using my own software:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cgvqY4LAqvk0kr0UOQmusU3fQGtxJsSN/view
To understand why this data is useless, you just need to compare, for the gauge at Furuögrund (Bothnian Gulf, Sweden), the negative sea level change (-8 mm / year) with the positive upward velocity of the land around it (+10 mm / year), due to the glacial isostatic rebound of the very elastic environment.
J.-P. D.
“The extremes have hardly shifted since the 1960s”
By inspection, yes, but that’s not much use on its own.
What is the calculated trend?
Is it linear or quadratic?
Is there acceleration?
What are the contributing factors?
Extremes are probably a better guide than the means in this case.
Extremes are outliers.
I always find it interesting that those in the climate trade look for the biggest datasets they can find, combining data from as many sites as possible and as many years as possible to get global long term trends.
The sceptics go the other way, more interested in outliers, extremes from single sites, often from stations or gauges which are on the edges of frequency distributions.
Can’t think why. Perhaps they are pushing the subtext that “This site doesn’t match the long term global trend, therefore the global long term trend is wrong.”
You do it, CO2isLife does it and it crops up regularly on merchant of doubt propaganda blogs.
“Extremes are outliers”
But only serves to show what the extremes of weather and tide will produce when combined together,
> a better guide
For what, more contrarian concerns?
Willard: A better guide than cartoons
Thank you for the kind words, Richard.
But I’m more a ninja than a guide.
No. You’re just a cartoon drawing idiot
[PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, ASSEMBLER (MORE THAN ONE), C, C++, C#, VB (MORE THAN ONE), R, SQL, PASCAL, AND A FEW OTHERS, TO A LEVEL GOOD ENOUGH TO DEBUG OTTERS’ CODE AND SOLVE THEIR PROBLEMS. MORE THAN 40 YEARS IN THE INDUSTRY, THE ODD QUALIFICATION IN THE FIELD, TEACHING SOME OF THAT TO THE OTHERS] You’re a cartoon idiot.
Don’t ever change, Richard.
Well you appear to be unable to improve
No U.
U turns are for others
It’s “otters.”
You need an AI for them too?
It’s a meme, dummy:
https://discourseontheotter-blog.tumblr.com/post/165796880265/the-otter-lives
Well so far you have squirrels, rats and now otters. Perhaps we should start a new meme.
Even your act is an old meme, Richard:
https://youtu.be/X6I_dKUYyI4
Whereas yours is just repetitive
Waldorf is many things, dear Richard, but original he ain’t. Otherwise he would not be a muppet in the first place.
At least he’s witty.
So try to be.
“At least hes witty.”
Well for sure you aren’t. Either here or on @nevaudit
The amount of wit in your No U’s would fit a matchbox, Richard.
And there would be no need to remove the matches.
Quote us some Burke.
Edmund Burke?
“You can never plan the future by the past.”
Edmund Burke
Which was why I ended up using relative sea level data from Brussels.
Which reinforces my observations about Southern England
Which was why I had to do the best I could with the data I could get.
I’d be interested to know what rate of sea level rise you would expect for a Channel port and how you calculated it.
Well one can only go with the tide gauge data that is available, and that can be quite sparse or non contiguous.
Entropic man
For the Dover example above, the estimate per year is a bit above 2 mm/year.
But… as said, you need GPS data for land movement correction when you consider only small portions of the worldwide gauge set.
When considering the set as a whole, you see that except old historical periods, the worldwide average by layman’s work is not so terribly different from that of a group of scientists (*) having done hard work, including of course corrections for vertical land movement:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_33qttKhTvMpbdjhnJUCL_-kO6HYlmht/view
What the graph also shows is a debunking of the myth around 60 year oscillations implying to consider gauges whtih higher lifetime only.
J.-P. D.
(*) Dangendorf & al.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0531-8?proof=t
(there is a free access link, but I forgot where I stored it.)
Data
https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41558-019-0531-8/MediaObjects/41558_2019_531_MOESM2_ESM.txt
Addendum: the 2nd order polynomial shows no acceleration for Dover.
Bindidon
Thank you.
Looks like the English Channel is something of a backwater. Most of the sea level action is going on elsewhere.
Addendum 2
The layman’s average was of course performed without any correction for VLM!
Entropic man
Here is a sorted trend list of all PSMSL gauges having sufficient data for anomaly construction wrt the mean of 1993-2013:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kLZZQH-zQjkWMvwT72JxAM34cLPOUjMr/view
Dover shows +22 mm / decade. Like does Hoek van Holland, no wonder…
J.-P. D.
“What the graph also shows is a debunking of the myth around 60 year oscillations implying to consider gauges with higher lifetime only.”
Now pass a longer than 15 years low pass over it (a running mean will do it you can think of nothing else) and see what it uncovers. If anything.
RLH
When will you stop talking about what other people should do?
Didn’t you recently claim to be a professional engineer, with huge experience in modern programming languages, beginning with… R?
When will you start doing the work yourself that you comfortably, smugly recommend to others?
What about downloading for example the PSMSL data
https://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.data/rlr_monthly.zip
and processing it exactly to the simple layman level I reached?
You then could ” pass a longer than 15 years low pass over it (a running mean will do it you can think of nothing else) and see what it uncovers. If anything ” .
*
Your filter stuff – especially your endless hand waving with Goodman’s good old picture about running mean vs. Gaussian – is in my personal opinion worth exactly as much as are lunar spin denial toys like coins, ball-on-a-string, or merry-go-round: nothing.
Go on into the real work, RLH, instead of superficially boasting all the time.
You behave here like Robertson’s avatar.
J.-P. D.
“Your filter stuff especially your endless hand waving with Goodmans good old picture about running mean vs. Gaussian is in my personal opinion worth exactly as much as are lunar spin denial toys like coins, ball-on-a-string, or merry-go-round: nothing.”
Actually it was my encounters with VP then led me to the tools I now use. As you might have learned if you had read the interchanges.
If you do not recognize what passes for good frequency and impulse responses then I fear that you know a lot less than you think you do.
So you think that DSP is likewise of no use no doubt. Even though it is time series data you are dealing with.
Thanks for the data though. I will have a look over it. Your inability to do even simple data processing on the sources you claim are very important though is slightly more than worrying.
“Didnt you recently claim to be a professional engineer, with huge experience in modern programming languages, beginning with R?”
Assembler (more than one), C, C++, C#, VB (more than one), R, SQL, Pascal, and just a few others. To a level good enough to debug others code and solve their problems. 40+ years in the industry. The odd qualification in the field. Teaching some of that to others.
So, yes, a professional engineer.
“When will you start doing the work yourself that you comfortably, smugly recommend to others?”
You think my latest updates to UAH with LP rather than running means are the only things I am doing? Think again.
Mathlab is new to me though. Oh well, I guess I can just translate that into r
Words, words, words.
More we can’t expect from people like you, RLH.
RLH
I’m inclined to agree with Bindidon.
This retired biologist and teacher estimated the expected rate of sea level for the English Channel using publicly available sea level and related data and some basic physics.(June 17, 7.40am)
I ended up with 4.1mm/year.
I looked forward to a similar or more sophisticated analysis from the data analyst and engineer, but all you gave me was the Climateball “But no data” card.
[PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, ASSEMBLER (MORE THAN ONE), C, C++, C#, VB (MORE THAN ONE), R, SQL, PASCAL, AND A FEW OTHERS, TO A LEVEL GOOD ENOUGH TO DEBUG OTTERS’ CODE AND SOLVE THEIR PROBLEMS. MORE THAN 40 YEARS IN THE INDUSTRY, THE ODD QUALIFICATION IN THE FIELD, TEACHING SOME OF THAT TO THE OTHERS] But data.
“Words, words, words.”
Care to share the m code you used to produce that graph from that data? Or is sharing code not your thing?
“I looked forward to a similar or more sophisticated analysis from the data analyst and engineer”
I am currently working my way through AIRS, AMO, AO, GISS, Had Crut5, NAO, OLR, PDO, PNA and SOI at present. I’ll get round to the sea level stuff in good time.
Willard: But data is a lot more sophisticated than cartoons.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/biased-media-reporting-on-the-new-santer-et-al-study-regarding-satellite-tropospheric-temperature-trends/#comment-730042
RLH, In the US, a “Professional Engineer” usually has received a license after meeting certain requirements, usually set by state governments. In fact, to claim to be a “Professional Engineer” without having attained a license has criminal penalties. Computer programmers, as far as I know, don’t have that sort of licensing requirement, though things may have changed since I did programming work.
Suggesting that I don’t have the qualifications and experience I do have is libelous I think. The ability to put letters after my name as well as the experience I have has never been questioned so far. I live in the UK, and follow UK rules.
Libel: A published false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation; a written defamation.
“The level of competence required for registration as a Chartered Engineer in the U.K. is comparable to many continental European countries that require masters-level education for registration as a professional Engineer.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartered_Engineer_(UK)
“In the United Kingdom, a Chartered Engineer is an engineer registered with the Engineering Council (the British regulatory body for engineers). Contemporary Chartered Engineers are degree-qualified and have gained the highest level of professional competencies through training and monitored professional practice experience.”
I probably could apply. I am unlikely to.
What a roundabout way to concede that Eric might be right, Richard.
A roundabout way to say that what he is looking at is not relevant to the current discussion. Much the same as you aren’t.
To provide evidence that engineers are chartered in UK parries whatever you wish to convey with your “I’m following the UK law,” dear Richard.
And your concession that you’re not a chartered engineer is enough to give Eric the point here.
You should bow now, but at the very least retract your insinuation of libel.
“And your concession that youre not a chartered engineer is enough to give Eric the point here.”
Since when did Computer Science Engineers apply to be chartered engineers?
“at the very least retract your insinuation of libel.”
It is libelous to suggest that I do not have the qualifications and experience that I claim to have.
I pity the judge who will have to suffer your silly questions in your libel case against Eric, Richard.
Here’s how one becomes a chartered engineer in the UK:
https://www.bcs.org/get-qualified/become-chartered/chartered-engineer-ceng/
Are you or have you ever been a BCS member?
Are you incapable of understanding that a chartered engineer is not something I would ascribed to being or indeed want to be? My profession does not normally apply to be such.
That does not make me a non-professional. It is like asking does a PhD make you a surgeon.
So you’re saying that “Professional Engineer” is like “therapist” insofar as just about anyone can pretend to be one, Richard?
That would be untrue, for there are regulations against that:
https://www.counselling-directory.org.uk/accreditation.html#registrationaccreditation
Too many scoundrels stories.
I don’t pretend to have an MSc and 40+ years of relevant experience in the industry.
Sure, Richard, and you don’t pretend being a professional engineer either…
People in my profession consider me to be a professional. Only no-hopers like you don’t.
Sure, Richard, and I’m trained in gorilla warfare.
Eric’s point was that “Engineer” was a protected title in the US. You don’t even have the fortitude to tell him that it’s not a protected title in the UK.
You insufferable twat.
That’s the problem with you North Americans, you think it is the whole world. I made it clear I was in the UK. IN the UK what I have used to considered normal and acceptable.
I always know when you are running out of ideas. You use childish language.
“Computer programmers”
Well that shows how little you think of my profession. Which covers just slightly more than programming by the way.
At least when you get to the level I was at in any case.
You do know I live in the UK don’t you?
You’re a coder, Richard.
Get over yourself.
I do code as part of my profession, true. That does not make just that though.
Coding is a noble art.
No need to beautify it with any title.
Understanding the logic and consistency underlying what coding does allows one to write competently in any computer language.
Next you’re gonna tell us you speak all the languages on Earth and beyond, Richard.
I’m told there’s an AI for that
I thought it was a fish.
Babble away if you like
No U.
Is there a V?
Only for Vendetta.
So limited you are
That deserves a No U, Richard.
I hear the https://www.uhaul.com/ are quite cheap really
Our PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, ASSEMBLER (MORE THAN ONE), C, C++, C#, VB (MORE THAN ONE), R, SQL, PASCAL, AND A FEW OTHERS, TO A LEVEL GOOD ENOUGH TO DEBUG OTTERS’ CODE AND SOLVE THEIR PROBLEMS. MORE THAN 40 YEARS IN THE INDUSTRY, THE ODD QUALIFICATION IN THE FIELD, TEACHING SOME OF THAT TO THE OTHERS is always welcome to improve the page:
https://climateball.net/but-data/
As I believe none of that garbage…
I don’t care about what our PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, ASSEMBLER (MORE THAN ONE), C, C++, C#, VB (MORE THAN ONE), R, SQL, PASCAL, AND A FEW OTHERS, TO A LEVEL GOOD ENOUGH TO DEBUG OTTERS’ CODE AND SOLVE THEIR PROBLEMS. MORE THAN 40 YEARS IN THE INDUSTRY, THE ODD QUALIFICATION IN THE FIELD, TEACHING SOME OF THAT TO THE OTHERS believes, Richard.
Willard: “I don’t care”. Nor do I
Glad we both don’t care about what you think, Richard.
Success!
Go back to drawing cartoons. It appears to be the only thing you are ‘good’ at.
I never drew cartoons, Richard.
Is this some kind of Oxonian insult?
Did you ever do anything useful then?
Showing how ridiculous your insults sound is useful enough to me, Richard.
So nothing useful that you are prepared to own then.
@nevaudit
Account suspended
Twitter suspends accounts which violate the Twitter Rules
Own what, Richard?
You’re still on hold on the other line where you were playing the legal tough guy with Eric.
Oh, and you owe a “weather != climate” to Pup.
You are just a plain idiot then?
Are you a scoundrel with no honor, Richard?
Looking in a mirror are you?
You are much more a scoundrel than anyone else here
Not really, Richard.
All you got is “NO U.”
You’re not 6 anymore. Grow up.
Even that is likely to be above your apparent age.
Another NO U.
Brilliant!
About what I’d expect from a toddler
I know you are but what am I?
An idiot. Which was decided a long time ago.
FYEO, Richard:
https://youtu.be/NTbFuiVPiMI
Your level of idiocy reaches another low level
Keep the No U’s coming, Richie boy!
U need to think about what U say
That’s not a No U, Richard.
One would be: No U need to think!
I might say that, but that would assume that you can think in the first place
After you.
The door’s over there. Don’t let it hit your ass on the way out.
So you’re Roy’s bouncer, now?
You look a bit on the thin side for that job.
Run into many bouncers do you? Like on Twitter for instance?
Ask Roy, dummy.
I’m sure he wants a bouncer like you.
Why don’t you argue with one you have already encountered?
Why don’t you make me a sammich, Richard?
Willard says:
June 18, 2021 at 12:16 PM
‘Sure, Richard, and Im trained in gorilla warfare.’
I hope you meant to say ‘guerilla warfare’ Willard!
No I didn’t:
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/navy-seal-copypasta
The correct spelling is ‘guerilla’, as found in the UK’s Concise Oxford Dictionary and also the USA’s Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
“The one you showed earlier ending in 2014 did a poor job.”
Did I not say at the time that LOWESS and S-G can be very poor predictors of actual outcomes?
“Like LOWESS, S-G will ‘whip’ around on new data like a caterpillar searching for a new leaf. It is likely that it will follow some similar trajectory but this is an estimate, not a certainty.
Currently shows that we are over a local peak and headed downwards! That may well change so”Caution Will Robinson””
Oh, wait, I did
No you do not need an advanced degree to conclude that the entire climate models are based on fiction. Just take an infrared immage of the sky at night and find out if the greenhouse gas effect exists or not. Easier yet, surf the net and sea infrared images of sky at night taken by amateurs.
Their conclusions that greenhouse gases continue to emmit infrared radiation after the sun goes down or after we stop emmiting CO2 is pure fiction.
Greenhouse gas emissions would only stop after sunset if the air temperature immediately dropped to 0 Kelvin.
A clue that this does not happen is the lack of solid nitrogen snow on the path as I return from my evening walk.
Clouds are present both day and night
No you do not need an advanced degree to conclude that the entire climate models are based on fiction. Just take an infrared immage of the sky at night and find out if the greenhouse gas effect exists or not. Easier yet, surf the net and sea infrared images of sky at night taken by amateurs.
Their conclusions that greenhouse gases continue to emmit infrared radiation after the sun goes down or after we stop emmiting CO2 is pure fiction
nabil…”Their conclusions that greenhouse gases continue to emmit infrared radiation after the sun goes down or after we stop emmiting CO2 is pure fiction”
Doesn’t matter if they are radiated or not, they cannot be absorbed by the Earth’s surface which is warmer than the emission sources or in thermal equilibrium with them.
2nd law.
Besides, if the Earth is the source of the heating in the GHGs, as is claimed by AGW theory, recycling heat from a surface and back to the surface so as to raise its temperature is called perpetual motion.
Above, Woeful Wee Willy Willard wrote –
”God I hate Roy’s parser.”
Wee Willy talks to God. God, like nearly everyone else, sniggers derisively at Whining Wee Willy.
Who wouldn’t?
Mike Flynn,
“God” is an expression.
Language is a social art.
In your case, it’s more an antisocial one, but Mike Flynn defies generalizations.
Welcome back!
Whacky Wee Willy tries to play his “silly semantic games”. Loses, as usual.
Invokes another deity, Mike Flynn. Both God and Mike Flynn no doubt keep sniggering derisively at Woeful Wee Willy’s pathetic attention seeking efforts.
Wee Willy is an idiot, but at least he is irrelevant.
Mike Flynn,
I’m not invoking another deity. I’m mentioning your name.
Every time you will mention me I will mention your name.
That’s all you deserve.
So you’re 0-2 on the silly semantic games, though in this case it’s more pragmatics.
Your name? You chicken shit anonymous propagandist.
<3
Whining Wee Willy,
Oh! Shock! Horror!
You are going to call me God, Mike Flynn, Your Most Exalted Highness, or something else, and expect that this will terrify me?
You dimwit. You are impotent and powerless.
And an idiot to boot.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
You ask —
“You are going to call me God”
No.
I’m going to call you “Mike Flynn.”
You know why?
Because that’s your Climateball name!
Swoon,
Climateball is something you made up and are desperate to make relevant.
Actually, Richard, “Climateball” is what I created. Contrarians were playing Climateball long before that, perhaps even you too. Let me check. Ah yes, perhaps that time when you were asking for another sammich:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/03/el-nino-research-in-the-news/#comment-1060145
But you’re right on one thing: your posturing isn’t that relevant. It just so happens that I like to study it.
July 3, 2013 – You have been re-reading a lot of stuff.
Reading is rereading.
Apparently you can read. Comprehension is what you mostly lack it appears.
No U.
In which alphabet?
rlh…”Assembler (more than one), C, C++,…. To a level good enough to debug others code and solve their problems. 40+ years in the industry”.
***
Any ideas on adding functions to XP ntoskrnl to allow XP to run on modern motherboards? The basics have been worked out so that XP runs efficiently on modern chipsets but problems need to be ironed out to get networking and modern 3D graphics cards to work. Basically, it involves adding functions to ntoskrnl, either directly or by using a dll with the functions in it that can be accessed by ntoskrnl.
Pretty soon, we’ll need to do the same with W7. There is already one hack to add USB 3 functionality to W7.
Not asking you to discuss that here but if it interests you I can point you to URLs where the discussion is happening.
Although I have worked with Microsoft in the past I am not about to do something they don’t want to do. Just grow up and move with the times. Windows 11 is just round the corner. Change to that instead.
I say “Bring back Windows 98!”
Fossil : )
And proud of it. I much prefer to interact with reality rather than your fantasy world.
If you consider Windows 98 to be reality….
I dont want to sound alarmist but:
“Oman just recorded its hottest day in history.
Temperatures soared to +51.6C (124.9F). This is +0.8C above the old all-time record for the country.
Numerous intense heatwaves unfolding across the Northern Hemisphere right now.”
https://twitter.com/ScottDuncanWX/status/1405246710255964160
Last February, temperatures in places in the US took out century old records not just by fractions of 1C, but by over 5C.
Here’s your chance, Richard!
Unprecedented since….
You’re a scoundrel, Richard.
Mark my words.
Why would anyone think your word was worth anything?
Because what I write under my name is my honor, Richard.
What about you, little scoundrel?
You name? Just what is your name then?
You used it already, Richard.
Your real name. You know, the one you continuously hide from everybody.
My real name is none of your business, Richard.
Even if you underwrote your comments with your real name you’d still act like a dishonorable asshat.
So you hide behind a made up name and call others asshats?
You must live in a different world.
You’re the living disproof of whatever point you think you may have here, Richard.
And considering you changed your handle in the Climateball world, you’re a bit of a sock puppet.
Goebbels would be much more descriptive.
The Non-Propagandist Hath Spoken!
“you changed your handle”
How so? Gone just to the initials which I even made a post about?
Love how you play dumb, Richard.
Keep it up!
I’ve a long way to go before I get down to your level of dumb.
No U.
U turn if U want too
So you can kiss my ass?
I have no wish to kiss your ass. In fact I can’t think of anything I would like less.
Astonishing, dear Richard, and we both know that astonishment is that state of the soul, in which all its motions are suspended, with some degree of horror.
We both know you’re a prat (single T) also
Another No U.
Only 25 letters in your alphabet?
Finally found some GPS GIA data for SE England.
https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/178/1/14/2065716
They estimate that Dover is sinking at about 0.5mm/year.
That allows me to adjust my estimate of the expected relative sea level rise for Dover.
Global Mean Sea level rise 4mm/year
Greenland melt and gravity adjustment -1.5mm/year
Glacial isostatic adjustment 0.5mm/year
Net change = 4.0-1.5+0.5 = 3.0mm/year.
Courtesy of Bindidon’s data I can compare that with an observed rise of 2.2mmm/year.
“an observed rise of 2.2mmm/year.”
Calculated rise “Net change = 4.0-1.5+0.5 = 3.0mm/year.”
What’s a small difference like that between friends?
The confidence limits for the GMSL rise are +/-0.4, for the Greenand data +/-0.15 and for the GIA +/-0.5.
That makes my estimate 3.0 +/- 1.05 mm/year and the upper and lower bounds 4.05 and 1.95.
The observed 2.2mm/year is well within the confidence limits of my estimate. As you say, a small difference between friends.
That gives quite a wide percentage of ‘fit’ then
“That gives quite a wide percentage of fit then”
The price of working with the real world. The Earth isn’t an electronics laboratory.
Come to think of it, I don’t recall 95% confidence limits or any other measure of uncertainty in your output.
Don’t engineers do uncertainty?
Yup we do. But if I allow 30% uncertainty to my figures it will cover just about every possible outcome.
I envy you. It must be marvellous to work in a laboratory and in an area where +/- 30% uncertainty is regarded as unusual.
Unfortunately it distorts your perspective and your expectations. Try getting out of your laboratory into the field and working in an area of research where uncertainty is unavoidable and 30% uncertainty is a luxury.
I work on a computer where 0.01% is considered a bad outcome
“I work on a computer where 0.01% is considered a bad outcome”
As I said, spoiled rotten!
No conception of the reality of doing science in the field.
And yet you rely so much on these stupid machines and there capability to deal with time series data in an effective fashion.
“Courtesy of Bindidon’s data I can compare that with an observed rise of 2.2 [mm]/year.”
Ent, what are sea levels supposed to be?
For naturally determined sea levels I doubt that there is a level at which it is “supposed to be”.
Over the last few million years evidence suggests that sea level has been 120 metres lower and 50 metres higher than today.
From the viewpoint of our civilization the optimum level is probably what it was when the coastal infrastructure was built.
The Norfolk naval base is struggling to cope with regular flooding, as are the low-lying areas of Miami Beach. This suggests that sea level is already higher than it was “supposed to be”.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/rising-seas-threaten-norfolk-naval-shipyard-raising-fears-catastrophic-damage-n937396
https://www.floridatrend.com/article/23304/sea-level-rise-and-florida-2025–2050/
The giant naval base in Virginia is under threat by rising seas and sinking land, but little is being done to hold back the tides.
“The land, pushed up by glaciers to the north thousands of years ago, is now sinking as much as an inch-and-a-half per decade. “
Another ropadope.
Norfolk is being hit three ways.
It is sinking due to GIA.
It is exposed to the 4mm/year GMSL rise.
It is being affected by the slowing AMOC circulation which is causing water to pile up along the US East coast rather than moving NE into the Greenland Sea.
Current rate of rise is 5.4mm/year and expected to accelerate.
https://phys.org/news/2021-01-sea-level-cards-trends.html
Whatever the cause, that is enough to require some sort of adaptation.
“4mm/year GMSL rise”
3.8mm year (inch-and-a-half per decade) land sinking.
Pretty much the same I suspect
“The land, pushed up by glaciers to the north thousands of years ago, is now sinking as much as an inch-and-a-half per decade.
Incidentally, Norfolk has already gone beyond your “inch -and a half per decade”.
The current rate of rise is 5.4mm/year, 2.2 inches/decade.
Blame the press nit me. I was just quoting them
And that should be fall rather then rise shouldn’t it?
“And that should be fall rather then rise shouldnt it?”
No.
In the absence of other variables, if GIA is causing the land to sink then the tide gauges will show a corresponding increase in relative sea level.
OK. The Land will sink which will lead to an apparent sea level rise.
EM,
I am impressed by measurements of sea level anywhere to 0.1 mm. That is about the thickness of a thick human hair! Well done!
However, marine fossils can be found at altitudes of over 6000 m. Sea levels were obviously 6000 m higher at these locations in the past, in order to deposit such fossils.
In light of facts such as these, how do you explain the 6000 m drop in sea levels?
A gotcha, of course – sea levels rise and fall chaotically with respect to the parts of the crust which show themselves above the finite volume of water sitting on top of a body consisting more than 99% molten rock.
Do you deny that marine fossils may be found 6000 m above present sea levels? How about fossil fuel from land based matter, at depths greater than 6000 m?
Magic, perhaps? Or just Nature at work, making monkeys out of climate crackpots?
Still convinced that CO2 affects ocean levels?
Why not lay down the fossils below sea level and then raise the land?
Indeed. Things are rarely as simple as people wish to make out.
Ent, sea levels likely have a proper range. Your guess of 50 meters higher to 120 meters lower is probably somewhat realistic.
So, as long as we’re in that range, there is nothing to really get alarmed about. There’s just too much uncertainty.
But, what we know for certain is CO2 can NOT cause sea level rise, except by in-gassing. Curiously, if we experienced a cooling trend, oceans would absorb more CO2. You could probably do one of your quick calculations to find out how much sea levels would rise if all of the atmospheric CO2 were absorbed.
> what we know for certain is CO2 can NOT cause sea level rise
Citation needed, Pup.
Whatever is increasing sea level is causing GMSL to rise by 4mm/year.
If you do the numbers, 1mm of sea level rise requires a volume increase of 360 cubic kilometres.
4mm/year would require an extra 1440 cubic kilometres/year.
Since the glacial isostatic adjustment is -0.3mm/year,the ocean basins are increasing volume by 360*0.3=108 km^3/year and the actual volume increase becomes 1440+108=1548 km^3/year.
Of that, about 930km^3 is from ice melt and 618km^3 from thermal expansion.
Once again if you do the numbers the ocean is taking up 3*10^21 joules/year.
If that thermal expansion ia not due to CO2 I would welcome your alternative explaination . Please show your calculations so that I can check them.
Ent, I know they can make up numbers. We saw that with the bogus “energy balance”, where they were trying to balance flux! And there’s the bogus 33K!
So yeah, we know CO2 can’t heat the oceans. If you believe otherwise, I be happy to explain the physics to you.
Found something at your level, Pup:
https://youtu.be/WNpzc3SLkxs
Whacko Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Citation needed, Pup.”
Presumably, you have one showing that the shape of the ocean basins is not continuously changing as the tectonic plates move?
And another citation showing that CO2 forces the ocean to maintain a particular level regardless of the capacity of the ever changing basins which contain them?
You are an idiot, kiddo! Get with the program. You sound like you are just another dimwitted
climate crackpot.
Mike Flynn,
Here you go:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content
Ho! Ho! Ho!
Wily Wee Willy,
You just can’t help yourself, can you?
Trying to get me to click on yet another diversionary link which has nothing to do with the question I asked. How do I know? It’s pretty simple.
I recognise the site http://www.climate.gov. NOAA climate crackpots believe in Trenberth’s “hidden heat”, for example, not able to be measured, and lurking about in the depths, just waiting to make itself felt at some unspecified time in the future!
And similar garbage. You expect me to be impressed by such bizarre rubbish?
Do you really believe such nonsense? I suppose you do.
Carry on being idiotic.
Mike Flynn,
Why should I try to impress you exactly?
Why should I care if you don’t read anything?
Why did you disappear from Roy’s?
Were you on vacation?
Too afraid to come back?
Cheers,
Why would anyone care about anything you write or say?
You’ll need to ask them, Richard.
You’re good at asking silly questions.
Gimme a C
Climate debils now canceling themselves because they are all white. who saw this one coming
https://youtu.be/XUgCus0k5UQ
There’s a pretty simple explanation for this behavior. CO2 emitted IR is very weak and can only be absorbed in the top micron or so of a water surface. As such, it is often claimed that this will mostly enhance evaporation and produce little warming.
What one would expect is higher TWV without any associated warming. This would be a negative water vapor feedback. Seems we now have experimental support for this description of reality.
One problem.
Higher TWV increases the water vapour greenhouse effect, leading to increased warming.
Ent, increased TWV would tend to stabilize temperature, but not increase it. Moist air does not change temperature as quickly as dryer air, everything else being the same.
EM, actually the increased water vapor decreases the GHE. It’s another negative feedback. As pointed out long ago by Dr. William Gray, it has to do with the vertical distribution.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericSpecificHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
The evaporative increase in water vapor enhances the speed of convection (the air becomes lighter). The convective currents are moving faster and they are pushed higher into the Troposphere. It is colder the higher you go. The cold air condenses a higher percentage of the water vapor reducing the concentration at high altitudes which is where the GHE is strongest.
You end up with more water moving through the water cycle but less ends up where it really counts for the GHE. Yes, it is counter intuitive but becomes obvious as soon as you think about it. Dr. William Gray really knew his stuff.
It’s also wrong, but its past my bedtime. Perhaps tomorrow.
Goodnight.
INCOMING ICE AGE UPDATE
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-forecasts/stifling-heat-wave-to-build-in-paris-berlin-warsaw/963150
Pity that a continent in the Northern Hemisphere is not the whole globe isn’t it?
Read past the first sentence, Richard.
Wee Willy,
The second sentence is –
“The heat in parts of Europe is forecast to reach levels not seen since 2019.”
Oooooh! A forecast! For around another 2% of the Earth’s surface!
The forecast is based on models, is it?
Do you set out to look like a complete climate crackpot, or does it just occur naturally? You really could try a bit harder to come to grips with reality, you know.
Unprecedented since 2019….
Mike Flynn,
Are you a betting man?
If you are, how much can you afford to lose?
Best,
What kind of movies do You prefer?
I’ve been trying to find the top description of the best movies in different categories lately.
I think it’s the best site https://whenismovie.com/. Аnd thanks to such collections, i choose only the best films.
Here is one of the collections that will leave any of you indifferent: https://whenismovie.com/top/top-10-latest-hollywood-spy-movies-2020-list.html
This has been around before, but it’s always fun to run it again, especially when the Alarmists and Warmists get carried away.
The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from US Consulate at Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.
Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.
Soundings to a depth of 3100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea fill rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.
From Washington Post, 1922.
Nice find, Pup!
Let me raise you:
https://web.archive.org/web/20100707124649/http://www.globalcoral.org/LONG%20TERM%20ARCTIC%20ICE%20TRENDS%20AND%20GLOBAL%20WARMING.1.pdf
I’m not giving any spoiler.
Woeful Wee Willy,
I don’t blame you. You just link to irrelevant nonsense, trying to get people to waste their time by clicking on your links.
You do realise that such practices just make you look like a brain dead climate crackpot, don’t you?
Maybe you don’t.
Oh well.
Mike Flynn,
How do you know it’s irrelevant?
Don’t tell me I made you look!
\o/
“Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea fill rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.”
Correct me if I am wrong Clint but this line does not seem appear in the original article.
Did you add that bit for effect?
That’s just one of the versions. I suspect the last line was added by, or for, Alarmists. (It gets them every time.)
Here’s the whole story:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/warm-welcome/
You know what would get me every time, Pup?
You doing the poll dance experiment.
Willard, are you more obsessed with me, or with yourself?
I certainly appreciate your stalking me. To be stalked by an obsessed, incompetent, braindead troll, only adds to my credibility.
BTW, you misspelled “pole” again. That was pointed out to you before. You just can’t learn.
You must refresh this page hundreds of times a day, hoping for a response from me. I know that because you often can respond within minutes. It’s called “obsession”.
Pup,
You’re the troll, I’m the slayer.
We were meant to meet.
Now, about the pole dance experiment, any chance you can post a YT video?
” Im the slayer.” Of your own reputation? You already done that.
No U.
V’s next
Yes V.
Gimme a B
Above, Wee Willy Willard commented to someone who asked his name –
“My real name is none of your business, Richard.”
And yet, the same Whining Wee Willy has convinced himself that Swenson is not my “real name”, and that “none of your business” does not apply to Woebegone Wee Willy himself.
What an idiot Wee Willy is – and a hypocrite to boot!
Sounds like your average self obsessed climate crackpot to me.
Mike Flynn,
That your real name is “Mike Flynn” or not is of little concern.
What matters is that this is the first name you took on a Climateball field.
Cherish it.
It’s the only one that matters.
Even if you can’t use it here!
Love,
Wearisome Wee Willy gets caught out being an idiotic hypocrite.
Wee Willy the Idiot then tries to create a diversion –
“What matters is that this is the first name you took on a Climateball field.”
Unfortunately for Wee Willy, it doesn’t appear that anyone else shares his preoccupation with stupidity and gibberish, nor do they seem to concur with Wayward Wee Willy’s opinion on what
matters, and what does not.
Oh dear. I wonder what fresh idiocy Wee Willy is about to attempt. Trying to convince people that his views are important, maybe?
Time will tell.
Mike Flynn,
You are my most favorite diversion.
So there’s no need to create any.
I met your point fair and square.
Suck it up.
See you tomorrow,
Woeful Wee Willy,
You are deranged, that seems obvious. Maybe your “auditing skillz” apply more to your fantasy than reality. Do you really believe that anybody actually cares for your opinion?
If nobody does, then you may as well live in your fantasy.
Keep it up.
Mike Flynn,
You’re not the herald of what everybody thinks.
Sorry.
Sincerely,
“Youre not the herald of what everybody thinks.”
Nor are you
I should count your No U’s, Richard.
Let’s say that was your 100th.
A silly one to boot. Let’s celebrate. Pick one:
https://giphy.com/explore/leo-champagne
You are an idiot. ‘nough said
No U.
Gimme an A
This is truly Prophetic: They were written long before today.
https://imgur.com/I9kto8G
https://imgur.com/nsyCbiE
Again, I dont want to alarm you:
In the Death Valley not only the days but even the nights are scorching: Today 18 June the CRN Station of Stovepipe Wells recorded a minimum temperature of 105F/40.6C. It was the warmest June night ever recorded in North America.
studentb…”….Stovepipe Wells recorded a minimum temperature of 105F/40.6C. It was the warmest June night ever recorded in North America”.
What’s with all these restrictions…warmest June night ever recorded in North America?
Your point?
> Your point?
An ICE AGE is coming, Gordon.
When will you invent a thermometer that takes the temperature of the whole Earth?
“An ICE AGE is coming”
But will the Sun explode before hand?
You’ll need to chase down Eben and ren for an answer to that, Richard.
And there I am thinking you know everything about everything
Indeed, Richard.
You are.
rlh…”Although I have worked with Microsoft in the past I am not about to do something they dont want to do”.
Have you always been a butt-kisser? Microsoft abandons XP users, and now W7 users, globally, for a piece of trash like W10, and you defend them???
Shame!!!
How easily you turn ‘worked with’ into ‘butt-kiss’. In fact I have had quite a few discussions with Microsoft that were critical about particular aspects of their future trajectory and that were in direct opposition to their intentions at the time.
If you knew just how much the NT kernel has changed over the time from XP to Windows 11 and how much the change is concentrated in the UI then we might have some serious discussions.
No manufacturer, especially in software, can have a continuous lifetime support policy. Neither does Microsoft.
“After 12 years, support for Windows XP will end on April 8, 2014.”
rlh…”If you knew just how much the NT kernel has changed over the time from XP to Windows 11 and how much the change is concentrated in the UI then we might have some serious discussions”.
***
I am quite aware of changes in the kernel, having devoured books by Russinovich et al. The reason I still prefer W7 is that it lacks the garbage added by Microsoft in W8 and W10 to turn Windows into a touch-screen OS. They were intent on making life miserable for mouse/keyboard users.
They also have been spying on people with W10 and they have screwed the kernel in their attempts to make W10 secure. Currently, W10 updates have messed up online printing. When I try to print a multipage document online, W10 loses its mind, spitting out page after page of partially written pages. It’s not just my system it’s a well known fault in W10 that is not being effectively addressed.
No, sir, W10 is a garbage OS that cannot perform any better than W7. In fact, if you use the Classic Shell, it returns W10 to a W7 appearance making the miserable OS livable.
With updates, Microsoft have been using the torrent approach of file sharing. If you don’t know how to turn off that nuisance you end up waiting forever to get a major update.
I have had to mod W10 extensively to make it usable for a mouse/keyboard and to end the spying.
One thing that really annoyed me was this. When MS detected user ingenuity in finding a way to get XP running on Intel 300 series chipsets, they cut off the user’s updates. MS are a load of close-minded, mean SOBs, with a mysogynist CEO. When Nadella heard that women were trying for promotion he suggested essentially they should stay in the kitchen.
That’s why I call you a butt-kisser for bragging about that Nazi mentality.
“The reason I still prefer W7 is that it lacks the garbage added by Microsoft in W8 and W10 to turn Windows into a touch-screen OS. They were intent on making life miserable for mouse/keyboard users.”
W8 (and part of W10) was all about adding in the await functionality. W8 suffered from an MS belief that all programmers would see the advantages it gave but that turned out not to be true. So in W10 they allowed both ‘normal’ and await programming to allow legacy code to run without change.
“They also have been spying on people with W10 and they have screwed the kernel in their attempts to make W10 secure.”
You can turn off the majority of the ‘spying’ if you wish. Making something more secure is the nature of the current world. If there were not people who want to pernitrate OSs with malicious intent then that would not be required. There are so it is.
“Online printing …. known fault in W10 that is not being effectively addressed”
I was unaware of that problem until you prompted me to look. Which printer driver are you using and what are you printing from?
As you say you can revert the UI to something approaching W7 if you so wish.
You seem determined on one hand to hate MS and yet on the other to continue to use it. For some people there is no help.
P.S. Amazon probably knows more about me than MS does, and I have been playing with MS stuff for decades.
rlh…”You seem determined on one hand to hate MS and yet on the other to continue to use it. For some people there is no help”.
Roy…Please forgive the digression into this off-topic region. Don’t plan to drag it out.
I acknowledge the contribution MS has made with Windows. It’s not about Windows it’s about the attitude of MS, and some kind of collusion between them and Intel et al. Intel is now withholding drivers for XP for no known reason.
I was a big fan of Intel for years. I loved their motherboards and I am still using one in a backup computer. Intel has been more than generous sharing technical info but now they are becoming petty, withdrawing drivers for XP when it does not affect them. The only company that benefits from Intel’s withholding is MS.
There was little option for me between Windows and Linux. I got Windows initially because I needed it for music software which Linux did not support at the time. Besides that, Linux has always been burdened under the hood by the archaic Unix OS. Unix was developed in the teletype era and many of the command line apps come from that era.
Much to my chagrin, I learned recently that Apple uses the same damned OS under the hood. I know DOS is not in the class of Unix as a command line OS but at least it is logical. Unix could not be more confusing with its lack of filename extensions, convoluted file permissions, and the use of mneumonics like ls rather than dir. I think ls means list, and since everything in Unix is regarded as a file, that may make sense to them. Now MS has adopted that idiocy in NTFS, making everything a file.
I have traced the MFT right to the heart of NTFS and at one time I understood it clearly. I could find my way around it and modify files in the MFT. Why did MS make the MFT limited in size? Once it is written, you are stuck with the size.
Point is, Unix dates back to the 70s and MS has been incorporating ideas from Unix into Windows. NTFS is based in Unix. It’s like software engineers at MS have gone off the deep end.
Bill Gates and his partner fluked into the big time. They got a sweetheart deal with IBM which made them. Gates now has a mentality that embraces eugenics and as a retired billionaire he has become really bizarre with his thought processes. Meantime, the MS leadership has become just as bizarre as have CEOs at Google and Facebook.
My point is that, as big as MS has become, they are led by heartless idiots. The average user does not see this, or care. It is the users who have expertise who can see what MS is up to. I am sorry they have fooled you.
“I am sorry they have fooled you.”
Who’s fooled?
I just tend to keep up to date with the changes that OS manufacturers such as MS make to their product.
That includes moving to a new one when they bring it out. And, yes, I will be moving to Windows 11 when it comes out.
Most, if not all, of the software I write runs under all variations of Windows that MS has produced since the very early days. Some require a little tweaking for a newer/later UI.
As to the desktop, filing system, UI, ancillary applications, etc. I just adopt to those currently offered and try not to be a dinosaur/luddite about these things.
Adapt not adopt.
willard…”Mike Flynn,
Why should I try to impress you exactly?”
Now Willard is talking to someone who has not been here for some time.
Mike