Climate-gate

[Billy T]

You've only just worked this out?

No - I did not "work that out." I only suggested an astronomical event than may cause this six decade periodic oscillation. Milkweed supplied the very interesting link to those who "worked it out" but neither he nor they offered an reason why it happens.
BTW I don't understand why you say "just" - the paper reporting this six decade oscillation was published ONLY TWO DAYS AGO! I read it and found it to be careful analysis by proven technology - program available on the internet they used to pull the harmonic component out of the trend up in air temperatures.

Have you (or anyone else) mentioned in climate thread post that a major component of the air temperature anomalies is (1)
harmonic oscillation with about six decade period Or (2) that there is a good chance it is related to what Kepler noticed in 1606 - namely that the Saturn/Jupiter returns to the same zodiac sector with that period (~60 years) and that one of the three repeated conjunctions may be where the major axis of Earth's ellipse is located too.*
If so I missed your post and would like to read it. - Please supply a link. Or stop making unfounded snide remarks about me. I'm doing my best to try to understand and expose the FACTS about what may be the most important problem mankind has ever faced.

Brillvon seems to think I am an alarmists to note the next peak of this major oscillation will be about in ~2060 when CO2 concentrations are much higher; and if business as usual (every decade releases more CO2 than the prior one) continues, 35C wet bulb is almost certain for at least half the world's population more than once per year. Did he make same complaint when you posted same facts?

* Thus for three or more consecutive passes of Earth thru aphelion, the gravitational perturbation of Earth's ellipse is significantly greater than during the next two conjunctions.

PS one simple test of my guess that the conjunctions near zodiac Cancer have stronger effect on Earth's eccentricity than the other two do because that is where, I think, the major axis of the Earth's ellipse passes, is to see if the conjunction in May 2000 was indeed there. - only a 1/3 chance of that if unrelated. I'm know little about how the zodiac has changed since Kepler or where in it the Jupitor/Saturn conjuctions are now - I guessed about cancer for what the long end of the line of aspsides extended is in. Can any reader tell me if that is approximately where the once every 20 years Jupiter/Saturn conjunction of May 2000 was?

Note all this may be too simplified. One really needs to also consider the ellipse eccentricity and orientations of both Jupiter & Saturn (not just Earth's) and then calculate their joint gravitational force on earth in about say May 2000 and compare it to their maximum force in the conjunctions of 20 and 40 years earlier to see if the 2000 conjunction, which is near the peak of the MDV oscillation is in fact about concurrent with that May 2000 conjunction as I tend to believe it was. Janus 58 - where are you now that your skills are needed?

 

[Trippy]

No - I did not "work that out." I only suggested an astronomical event than may cause this six decade periodic oscillation. Milkweed supplied the very interesting link to those who "worked it out" but offered no reason why it happens.

I am simply surprised that anybody should be surprised by this observation, it's fairly obvious even looking at the raw data (or it should be - but then, I'm often surprised when stuff I consider to be obvious turns out to be groundbreaking in some way).

Have you (or anyone else) mentioned in climate thread post that a major component of the air temperature anomalies is (1)
harmonic oscillation with about six decade period

I haven't used those exact words as I recall, I have repeatedly made the point that the current hiatus in global warming is unremarkable on several grounds:
1. It's one of three visibile in the record.
2. it's the first one to have even a slightly positive slope (the first had a negative, the second approximately neutral, and this one is slightly positive).
3. It's duration is unremarkable and if the previous two are anything to go by it's going to persist - I was going to do some analysis this weekend to compare it to the previous two to illustrate these points.

Every time I've generated what is effectively a monte carlo data-set to illustrate the follies of using short term data to draw conclusions on long term trends (usually in relation to the hiatus) I use four components:
1. a secular increase (usually linear and at the projected rate for temperature rise).
2. a decadal component (because solar variability and the PDO).
3. a multi decadal component (because it's obvious in the data and we have cycles like ENSO which vary over this time-scale).
4. a randomized component (because real world).

Or (2) that there is a good chance it is related to what Kepler noticed in 1606 - namely that the Saturn/Jupiter returns to the same zodiac sector with that period (~60 years) and that one of the three may be where the major axis of Earth's ellipse is located too. If so I missed your post and would like to read it.

I haven't commented on any astrological aspects or looked into planetary alignments because I thought it was adequately explained by considering factors such as the ENSO cycle.

 

[Photizo]

Meanwhile, in the real world: http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/12/there-are-now-52-explanations-for-the-pause-in-global-warming/


http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09...sept-1-to-sept-10-some-records-broken-by-16f/

http://trib.com/news/local/casper/u...cle_5ed4db8e-6af9-5617-a53c-5fc87c36711b.html

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/coolest-air-since-spring-to-re/33889760

http://www.infowars.com/global-warming-advocates-plan-march-amid-record-cold-temperatures/

The people's climate march : http://peoplesclimate.org/march/

 

[Trippy]

Please supply a link. Or stop making unfounded snide remarks about me. I'm doing my best to try to understand and expose the FACTS about what may be the most important problem mankind has ever faced.

You've got to be kidding me...

 

[Billy T]

... I thought it was adequately explained by considering factors such as the ENSO cycle.

Well, it is NOT. The enso cycle is very short term, a few years and quite erratic - nothing like harmonic modulation with a 60 year period. compare:

with the green line here:

for 60 year very uniform amplitude oscillation, you almost must envoke some planetary interactions - Why I immediately thought to look there. - I left my thought evolution, including 10 or so minuets of real stupidity, exposed in the original post - I was publicly and rapidly evolving my ideas.

 

[Trippy]

The demand for links makes it sound like you think I'm lying. Are you accusing me of lying Billy T?

Some examples:

See, here's the thing...

The current 'hiatus' in warming isn't actually that unusual. I've never understood why people put so much stock in it.

1. It is the third such hiatus on record. If one examines the temperature record since 1850, one finds three similar examples of a hiatus within it, and they are present in GISTEMP, NOAA, and HADCRUT4.
The first was from 1880ish to 1910ish, the second was from 1940ish to 1970ish, and then there's the modern 'hiatus' which some people would have us believe started in 1998.

2. The previous two have lasted around 30 years, so this one could continue for another 20 and it still wouldn't be problematic.

3. The trend in the first one was somewhat strongly negative, the trend in the second one was less strongly negative, the trend in this one is very weakly positive.

Source

Here I am saying the same thing in June 2013 so I've been saying the same thing for at least a year.

 

[Billy T]

You've got to be kidding me...

No, I'm not. You and Billvon may swallow, hook, line and sinker the IPCC's politically compromised reports, always very kind to the oil industry as their reps play large role in selecting what is in them, but I'm no Dr. Pangloss. I want my facts well documented by researchers with no obvious biases, like NASA's empirical study of Arctic tundra release of GHG, or the 30 year Russian research program, lead by Russian Lady who does field work, etc. Teams with main concern for humanity's longer term future, not reports with "politically feasible" near term results that the government will approve.

 

[Trippy]

Well, it is NOT. The enso cycle is very short term, a few years and quite erratic - nothing like harmonic modulation with a 60 year period. compare:

with the green line here:

Please Billy, Apples with Apples, surely you can do better than that. Look at the disparity in time-scales on those two graphs.

Note, for example, that from 1945-1970 the ENSO was predominantly in the La-nina phase. Like wise, between 1870-ish and 1895-ish (most of the first hiatus) againit was predominantly in the la-nina phase.

And the oscillations aren't that uniform, The residuals are quite significant in places.

 

[Billy T]

... Are you accusing me of lying Billy T? ...

No I was just responding to your annoying comment:
"You've only just worked this out?" as If what was just published two days ago, was well known - you and others had worked it all out before.

 

[Trippy]

No, I'm not. You and Billvon may swallow, hook, line and sinker the IPCC's politically compromised reports, always very kind to the oil industry as their reps play large role in selecting what is in them, but I'm no Dr. Pangloss. I want my facts well documented by researchers with no obvious biases, like NASA's empirical study of Arctic tundra release of GHG, or the 30 year Russian research program, lead by Russian Lady who does field work, etc. Teams with main concern for humanity's longer term future, not reports with "politically feasible" near term results that the government will approve.

See, now you're just being rude and throwing out personal attacks Billy T.

 

[Trippy]

No I was just responding to your annoying comment:
"You've only just worked this out?" as If what was just published two days ago, was well known - you and others had worked it all out before.

The thing is Billy T, whether or not you like, I had worked out that there was long term varibaility in the climate record superimposed ontop of the long term secular trend, and I've proven that I've been saying the same thing about the hiatus for at least 12 months.

I don't care of you found the comment annoying, I am genuinely surprised that anybody is only just working this out.

 

[Billy T]

Please Billy, Apples with Apples, surely you can do better than that. Look at the disparity in time-scales on those two graphs.

Note, for example, that from 1945-1970 the ENSO was predominantly in the La-nina phase. Like wise, between 1870-ish and 1895-ish (most of the first hiatus) againit was predominantly in the la-nina phase. And the oscillations aren't that uniform, The residuals are quite significant in places.

Now you got to be kidding but thanks for the longer period of what on first glance looks like "white noise." - certainly is not the six decade regular sin wave like variation of the green MDV line - I dare you to do a fast Fourier transform on both data sets. - then you will understand your data (and any white noise data) will have many harmonic components, not basically just one with a 60 year period.

vs.

 

[Billy T]

The thing is Billy T, whether or not you like, I had worked out that there was long term varibaility in the climate record superimposed ontop of the long term secular trend, and I've proven that I've been saying the same thing about the hiatus for at least 12 months.

I don't care of you found the comment annoying, I am genuinely surprised that anybody is only just working this out.

You are missing the main point. Yes in ANYTHING as complex as GW problem there will be "long term variablity" but there is world of difference in that and statement that major part or the variation is sin wave like with a period of ~60 years.

 

[Trippy]

Now you got to be kidding but thanks for the longer period of what on first glance looks like "white noise." - certainly is not the six decade regular sin wave like variation of the green MDV line - I dare you to do a fast Fourier transform on both data sets. - then you will understand your data (and any white noise data) will have many harmonic components, not basically just one with a 60 year period.

vs.

Billy...

Get a grip - for one thing, this is a distraction. For the other thing...

Nobody said that the ENSO was a perfect fit to the green line, I only said that I was under the impression that the multi decadal oscillation in the temperature record had been well explained by the likes of the ENSO cycle and the PDO - I only picked those two because, being someone who lives on the ring of fire, they happen to be the two that are most relevant to me.

 

[Trippy]

You are missing the main point. Yes in ANYTHING as complex as GW problem there will be "long term variablity" but there is world of difference in that and statement that major part or the variation is sin wave like with a period of ~60 years.

I'm not missing anything Billy T. The clean green sinewave is an approximation, and while it may be new to you, and may be new to sources like the Watts On Report, it's not new to other people and long term variability is a perfectly adequate and accurate description.

 

[Trippy]

I find it ironic, really, that you make comments like this:

...the IPCC's politically compromised reports, always very kind to the oil industry as their reps play large role in selecting what is in them...

But keep citing sources such as Watt's up with that?

Wish I’d said that! Earlier this week, Jesse Eisinger of ProPublica, compared people who keep predicting runaway warming to “true believers whose faith in a predicted apocalypse persists even after it fails to materialize.” Indeed. Climate forecasters are often wrong. Me, too! If a climate scientist never makes an incorrect prediction, he or she isn’t…

Which it seems over-all contradicts you.

 

[Billy T]

I'm not missing anything Billy T. The clean green sinewave is an approximation, ...

Yes you are. The sine like green curve is NOT an approximation, but an extract from the data. It and the single secular term alone give an 85% fit to the data. Here is the methodology that produced it - NOT any approximation used!

Singular spectrum analysis (SSA) is a methodology specifically designed to extract information from noisy time series [24] and is analogous to applying an extended empirical orthogonal function (EEOF) analysis to successive lags of a univariate time series [25]. The particular SSA applied here was performed with the Rssa package of the statistical software R, freely available from the Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN, http://cran.r-project.org/). Using such a freely available code supports the reproducibility of the analysis performed in the present manuscript [26]. SSA allows decomposition of the time series into a sequence of elementary patterns of behavior that are classified as either trends (ST in this work) or oscillatory patterns. SSA was applied to the annual temperature anomalies in the different studied regions and to the different time series obtained for individual months.

Basically white noise is about as different from a sine wave as it gets. Yes you (and me*) have long been suggesting there were serious variations, not well understood in GW models. What is completely new is that huge fraction of that variation is due to ONLY one harmonic component with ~60 year period.

* One of my main complaints against the IPCC is they freeze the strength of the feed backs forever to be as they were at one point in time -totally ignoring that they are very dynamically changing - have constant variations.

 

[Trippy]

Yes you are. The sine like green curve is NOT an approximation, but an extract from the data. It and the single secular term alone give an 85% fit to the data. Here is the methodology that produced it - NOT any approximation used!

No Billy, it is, by definition a model, an approximation. It models one component of the long term trends in the data.

Basically white noise is about as different from a sine wave as it gets.

It's not white noise Billy. Take a closer look. Take a look at the black line, which is a long term average (i'm not sure what the length of the average is). There are clearly periods when it is predominantly positive and predominantly negative. Those periods where it is predominantly negative coincide with the hiatuses, and those periods where it is predominantly positive coincide with periods of accelerated warming.

Ironicaly, in your desire to be right, you've missed the opportunity to ask an obvious question.

Yes you (and me) have long been suggesting there were serious variations, not well understood in GW models. What is completely new is that huge fraction of that variation is due to ONLY one harmonic component with ~60 year period.

On the one hand I have R installed on the computer I am currently using and have used it on temperature data, on another hand I was trained in the use of R 20 years ago, I even had a project here where I was trying to write a climate model in it.

On the final hand I repeat that the only person that it may be news to that the climate record contains a multidecadal variable component is you.

 

[Billy T]

I find it ironic, really, that you make comments like this:
"...the IPCC's politically compromised reports, always very kind to the oil industry as their reps play large role in selecting what is in them.."

But keep citing sources such as Watt's up with that?

I don't recall EVER citing that source - I went there and am sure I have never seen that page before. Please tell in what post I cited them.

And also tell what part of my quote above is false. Is it not true that:
(1) people on oil company payrolls serve on the IPCC's report writing committees, and even as Chair of at least one committee?
(2) That many governments (at least a couple of dozen) review every IPCC report and some insist on word changes before the report can be released?

That is why I call it "political compromise process" - not science.

 

[Billy T]

... It's not white noise Billy. Take a closer look. Take a look at the black line, which is a long term average (i'm not sure what the length of the average is). There are clearly periods when it is predominantly positive and predominantly negative.

True of white noise or even coin flip results - yes there are runs of + (or heads) and of - (or tails)

... I repeat that the only person that it may be news to that the climate record contains a multidecadal variable component is you.

That is not the new item. You are still missing it. Yes any set of white noise will have some small components with multidecadal frequency provided the data set is twice the time length of the component of interest. What is new & and you still miss is:
that one VERY LARGE, 60 YEAR PERIOD HARMONIC COMPONENT GREATLY DOMINATES ALL OTHERS by more than an order of magnitude!

It cries out to be explained - I may have.