Climate-gate

[Trippy]

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.

Look at the source of your image:

wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/jrc-graph-global-temperature-anomalies-640.jpg

And also tell what part of my quote above is false. Is it not true that:
(1) people on oil company payrolls server 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 releast? That is why I call it "political compromise process" - not science.

I'm not interested in addressing any of this TBH Billy. How often do you see my citing the IPCC as a source anyway? Answer: I don't unless I'm specifically addressing comments about their predictions - with one exception, there are one or two authors where I have cited papers they have written for the IPCC.

Oh, and just to illustrate my point that this is far from being 'new news', take a look at this, it's from Watt's up with that in 2010:

If we subtract the annual global SST anomalies in 1880 from the value in 1910, the difference is the change in global SST anomalies over that 31-year span. Using this same simple calculation for the remaining years of the dataset provides a curve that exaggerates the variations in global SST anomalies. This dataset is identified as the “Running Change (31-Year) In Global SST Anomalies” in Figure 2. The data have been centered on the 16th year.

Why 31 years? A span of 31 years was used because it is approximately one-half the apparent cycle in the datasets, and it should capture the maximum trough-to-peak and peak-to-trough changes that occur as part of the 60-year cycle. Using 31 years also allows the data to be centered on the 16th year, with 15 years before and after.

Source

I will grant one point of leniency at this point though, what may have happened is the realization sinking into the mainstream that rather than the hiatus being a statisical fluke it's part of the same cycle that's occured twice already on the temperature record. It seem's you're not the only one capable of making correct predictions on this forum.

 

[Trippy]

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

You're making the same mistake as everybody else here - dismissing these things as statistical flukes.

That i not the new item. You are still missing it. Yes any set of white noise will have some small compontes with multidecadal frequency provided the data set is twice the time lenght of the component of interest.

I'm not missing any point Billy, I understand that you think it is a statistical fluke. I'm disagreeing with your dismissal of it as random noise, and pointing out that there is more than just ENSO that display this behaviour.

Remember, what you're disputing is this sentence:
"a multi decadal component (because it's obvious in the data and we have cycles like ENSO which vary over this time-scale)."
The break down.
First I say there are cycles, plural not singular.
Then I use the word like, as in analagous, similar to, resembling.
Then I state that the vary over a multidecadal timescale.

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!

I'm not missing anything Billy. Apparently the opposite is true. Apparently things that are obvious to me are obfuscated from most other people.

 

[Billy T]

Look at the source of your image:

wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/jrc-graph-global-temperature-anomalies-640.jpg

No I got that graph (one of three joined together) here:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0107222

 

[Billy T]

You're making the same mistake as everybody else here - dismissing these things as statistical flukes.

No I did not do that either - NEVER CALLED IT A "STATISITCALF FLUKE." living in Brazil I am very aware that El Nino and El Nina have great influence on the the weather for a few years - Point is they have essentially zero effect compared to the DOMINATE green MDV sine wave like effect on a 60 or more year time scale.

ON THAT SCALE: their effect, if any, is very much like white noise, not a sine wave of quite pure frequency.

Last reply for the day - going to bed now.

 

[Trippy]

No I got that graph (one of three joined together) here:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0107222

No, the image you have been posting comes from the URL I pointed to.

 

[Trippy]

No I did not do that either - NEVER CALLED IT A "STATISITCALF FLUKE."

Uh, yeah you did, several times, including in this post you have referred to the multidecadal variability in ENSO as being a statistical fluke.

living in Brazil I am very aware that El Nino and El Nina have great influence on the the weather for a few years - Point is they have essentially zero effect compared to the DOMINATE green MDV sine wave like effect on a 60 or more year time scale.

The point is that the multidecadal variation in the PDO and AMO (the two important ones) and ENSO (I just noticed, I got ENSO and PDO switched) explain the green sinusoidal line. Here's a website from 2012 illustrating my point. This has been known about for some time and it illustrates how the multidecadal variations I keep talking fit into everything else - note, among, other things, that the site was first created in 2010.

ON THAT SCALE: their effect, if any, is very much like white noise, not a sine wave of quite pure frequency.

See, here you are again calling the multidecadal variability in ENSO a statistical fluke. You're confusing the interannual variability with the longer term trends.

 

[Trippy]

Oh - an here's a paper from 2010 asking the same question you're now asking: Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications; Nicola Scafetta, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2010).

So, as I say, not. new. Which is actually the point that I was making. Obviously I differe from Scafetta's interpretation.

 

[Trippy]

While I don't neccessarily endorse the conclusions of this site some of the illustrations serve to demonstrate my point:
The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation:

Period, approximately 62 years.

Pacific Decadal Oscillation:

Period: Approximately 60 years.

Which is the point that I have been making.

 

[Billy T]

While I don't neccessarily endorse the conclusions of this site some of the illustrations serve to demonstrate my point:
The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation:

Period, approximately 62 years.

Pacific Decadal Oscillation:

Period: Approximately 60 years.

Which is the point that I have been making.

I think you are confusing cause and effect.

I suggest the planetary conjunctions occurring ever 20 years but in the same place in the zodiac only ever 61 or so years are the cause of the two (and many other) ~61 years oscillations. I. e. the two you cite above, plus probably variations in the major, long lasting, quasi-stable, ocean currents, like the Gulf Stream; However, these all only REDISTRIBUTE thermal energy - and thus are not primary drivers of climate - only of local weather - changes.

Same is true of El Nino /El Nina. Normally Peru has very productive ocean fish industry are nutrient rich bottom water wells up off it coast. That is driven by the generally West bound winds blowing across the pacific. They pile up a huge mass of water (above the geopotential equilibrium) along the Asian coast - up to 20 meters (or perhaps it is feet? - I forget) above the gravitational equilibrium surface.) and that added pressure makes deeper water move along the bottom towards Peru's coast. Some times the average winds die down and that pressure piston decays quickly by the elevated water flowing back towards S. America on the surface. - Peru's fishing industry goes into deep collapse as the fish go elsewhere trying to find their food which grew near the coast in the nutrient rich water.

Same is true of hurricanes - they redistribute existing thermal energy.

Redistribution of existing energy has great effect locally - we say the WEATHER has changed, but no significant effect on the CLIMATE, especial globally. That requires a long lasting change in the sun's energy input to Earth.

Large volcanoes are sort of an intermediate case (partly climatic, partly weather change). Initially they cool globally but when their high altitude dust has settled out, they may warm for a few decades as they change the atmosphere gas concentrations for that time scale until other natural processes restore it. They are how Earth gets out of the high albedo "snow ball" earth trap.

If the perturbation of earth's orbits by every third conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter is greater than the other two, as I suspect, with permanent effect on the orbit, then that drives a change in the solar input energy - is not just a redistribution of Earth's energy content. I. e. makes a CLIMATIC, NOT JUST WEATHER, change with a ~61 year period.

BTW, here is the triad of figures I too first of from the source I said by first enarging it - I NEVER visited the source you siad I repeately used.

hope it posts. It did not so will try again on second:

You can see the third of the triad by visiting MY source, not the one you falsely claim I used, by clicking on it to enlarge it in new widow and then copy that link in that new window - How I posted the first originally and the second of the trial just minutes ago. I did not know the source you claim I repeatedly used even existed until you made that false claim.

Note that graph C, the auto correction with years of lag, of temperure does not spike at 60 years - as I have repeatedly said, Graph B is very much like "white noise." - You can find weak component of any periodicity in it you want, but not the huge, dominate, sine like component with ~61 year period.

 

[Trippy]

I think you are confusing cause and effect.

I'm not confusing cause and effect - you're arguing that it's an effect of an astronomical alignment and I'm disagreeing with you.

You argued that the cause of the variation in the climate change was a result of orbital alignments.
I argued that it was caused by quasi-periodic multidecadal variations in well known cycles.
You initially argued that the multidecadal cycles were of insignificant impact, but have shifted the goal posts so you are now arguing that the cause of the quasi-periodic multidecadal variations is orbital alignments.

I NEVER visited the source you siad I repeately used.

I don't recal saying that you visited it, only that you cited it (IE that was where your image is/was sourced from. I found it curious that you used the WUWT image over the Image from the news release (even though as near as I can tell they're identical).

MY source, not the one you falsely claim I used

It's not a false claim Billy, all anyone has to do to test the claim is go back and quote your post for themselves - unless you edit the post further.

 

[sculptor]

I am genuinely surprised that anybody is only just working this out.

Ok, reality check

As you may have noticed I've been focusing on the sun's role in climate forcing and solar physicists like Scafetta (the last time I quoted him in here i was labeled "denier")
The problem with "focus" is "blinders".
I come here to get a broader view.
Thank you and Billy and some others for that.

Really great stuff the past few pages

 

[Billy T]

... You initially argued that the multidecadal cycles were of insignificant impact, but have shifted the goal posts so you are now arguing that the cause of the quasi-periodic multidecadal variations is orbital alignments. ...

Still do say that all the multi-decade effects that ONLY redistribute energy already contained on earth change LOCAL weather, but do not make GLOBAL climatic changes. For that you need to make mulit-decadal and permanent changes in the energy the sun give earth or long lasting changes in the net IR that escapes, such as the now increasing for decades CO2 atmospheric concentrations. Not "shifting the goal posts" at all - telling the same consistent story.

... You argued that the cause of the variation in the climate change was a result of orbital alignments.

That is the 61 year sine wave like part of it, I think*, but certainly man's increasing release of GHGs is making cimate change too, mainly via changing the rate that IR radiation escapes into space make.

* I plan to start thread in the astronomy forum to put some numbers in. I will need help, but one thing I have realized is that I only need to compute the net graviational force of Saturn and Jupitor on the sun, not the Earth, to see if one of the three zodiacal positions of their conjunction is larger than the other two - Earth's only year long orbit will average out the annual variation in the gravitational perturbation of their "conjunctive force" making permanent changes to Earth's orbit with each conjunction.

 

[Billy T]

Oh - an here's a paper from 2010 asking the same question you're now asking: Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications; Nicola Scafetta, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2010).

So, as I say, not. new. Which is actually the point that I was making. Obviously I differe from Scafetta's interpretation.

Thanks for that link. This part of their introduction is most interesting to me:
" Among them, large climate oscillations with peak-to-trough amplitude of about 0.1 oC and 0.25 oC, and periods of about 20 and 60 years, respectively, are synchronized to the orbital periods of Jupiter and Saturn. Schwabe and Hale solar cycles are also visible in the temperature records. A 9.1-year cycle is synchronized to the Moon's orbital cycles. A phenomenological model based on these astronomical cycles can be used to well reconstruct the temperature oscillations since 1850 and to make partial forecasts for the 21st century. It is found that at least 60\% of the global warming observed since 1970 has been induced by the combined effect of the above natural climate oscillations. The partial forecast indicates that climate may stabilize or cool until 2030-2040. "

The source I have been quoting from (supplied by milkweed in his post 1357) adds in a curve fit (sort of weak exponential) secular term, ST to the ~61 year MDV sin wave like term to capture ~85% of the temperature history for last few decades. Thus it is interesting that your source only extended to 2040, the end of the next cooling phase of the MDV term. After that we get into the heating phase and that combined with the accelerating rate of GHG release (every decade more than the prior one) makes it seem not likely to be possible to avoid lethal 35C wet bulb conditions at least once per year for majority of humanity prior to about 2060, so I hope your disbelief is correct, but currently don't think it is, especially after reading your link.

 

[Billy T]

It is little wonder that you disagree with your link as they explicitly agree with me that the two effects you mentioned are due to an extra terrestrial cause -- I.e. as I said are effects, not causes. See their page 2, left column, third paragraph from the bottom, which reads:

"... oscillations of the atmosphere and of the ocean, such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), may be induced by complex extraterrestrial periodic forcings that are acting on the climate system in multiple ways. Indeed, the climate system is characterized by interesting cyclical patterns that remind astronomical cycles."

Their "may be" is just good conservative publication terminology - but that is the main thrust of their entire paper.

 

[Trippy]

Still do say that all the multi-decade effects that ONLY redistribute energy already contained on earth change LOCAL weather, but do not make GLOBAL climatic changes. For that you need to make mulit-decadal and permanent changes in the energy the sun give earth or long lasting changes in the net IR that escapes, such as the now increasing for decades CO2 atmospheric concentrations. Not "shifting the goal posts" at all - telling the same consistent story.

By definition you are wrong - these multidecadal quaiperiodic cycles are variations in climate. How can changing the heat distibution (for example between the poles and the equator) not change long term climate patterns?

That is the 61 year sine wave like part of it, I think*, but certainly man's increasing release of GHGs is making cimate change too, mainly via changing the rate that IR radiation escapes into space make.

* I plan to start thread in the astronomy forum to put some numbers in. I will need help, but one thing I have realized is that I only need to compute the net graviational force of Saturn and Jupitor on the sun, not the Earth, to see if one of the three zodiacal positions of their conjunction is larger than the other two - Earth's only year long orbit will average out the annual variation in the gravitational perturbation of their "conjunctive force" making permanent changes to Earth's orbit with each conjunction.

Here's one of my objections to this whole idea: Jupiter has something like 2.5 times the mass of the rest of the planets combined and the Jupiter-sol barycenter lies at something like 1.07 solar radii from the center of the sun. Jupiter has a twelve year orbital period - where's the term for that in amongst all of this?

 

[Trippy]

Ok, reality check

As you may have noticed I've been focusing on the sun's role in climate forcing and solar physicists like Scafetta (the last time I quoted him in here i was labeled "denier")
The problem with "focus" is "blinders".
I come here to get a broader view.
Thank you and Billy and some others for that.

Really great stuff the past few pages

As I said - I disagree with Scafetta's conclusions, I was quoting him to Billy T to demonstrate that this is all known science and that even Scafetta attributes the variability in the climate to the variability in the multi-decadal cycles. Where I disagree with Scafetta is in the origin of the quasi-periodic multidecadal oscillations in for example the PDO, AMO and ENSO, in the first place.

 

[Trippy]

It is little wonder that you disagree with your link as they explicitly agree with me that the two effects you mentioned are due to an extra terrestrial cause -- I.e. as I said are effects, not causes. See their page 2, left column, third paragraph from the bottom, which reads:

"... oscillations of the atmosphere and of the ocean, such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), may be induced by complex extraterrestrial periodic forcings that are acting on the climate system in multiple ways. Indeed, the climate system is characterized by interesting cyclical patterns that remind astronomical cycles."

Their "may be" is just good conservative publication terminology - but that is the main thrust of their entire paper.

Yes BIlly T, I'm well aware of what the source says, that's why I cited it in the first place - to prove my point regarding this being old and known.

And no, you're not quite right. Scafetta attributes the variations in the temperature record to the quasiperiodic variations in multi-decadal cycles (EG the PDO and the AMO). Where Scafetta and I disagree is in the neccessity of invoking the alignment of Saturn and Jupiter to drive those cycles. I don't think it's neccessary.

 

[Trippy]

The source I have been quoting from (supplied by milkweed in his post 1357) adds in a curve fit (sort of weak exponential) secular term, ST to the ~61 year MDV sin wave like term to capture ~85% of the temperature history for last few decades.

The source Milkweed quoted in post #1357 was Watts Up With That, which you said in Post #1358:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0107222

Added as Excuses for the Pause #52:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/...atural-climate-variability-as-secular-trends/

Graph below from your second link is good summary of your first link, which appears to me to be a careful and valid analysis (assuming the data used is).

Which makes these statements Post #1357 and Post #1383 and Post #1389:

...I NEVER visited the source you siad I repeately used...
...not the one you falsely claim I used...
...I did not know the source you claim I repeatedly used even existed until you made that false claim...

No I got that graph (one of three joined together) here:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0107222

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.

false - although,, I might be tempted to give you the benefit of the doubt for that last one and assume you genuinely don't recall visiting the WUWT page the graph came from. I'd almost be tempted to suggest an apology, from you, to me, might be in order.

Thus it is interesting that your source only extended to 2040, the end of the next cooling phase of the MDV term.

There are a number of possible reasons for stopping in 2040 - some involving an underlying agenda.

After that we get into the heating phase and that combined with the accelerating rate of GHG release (every decade more than the prior one) makes it seem not likely to be possible to avoid lethal 35C wet bulb conditions at least once per year for majority of humanity prior to about 2060, so I hope your disbelief is correct, but currently don't think it is, especially after reading your link.

If you genuinely think that my disbelief in the astronomical connection with the alignments of Jupiter and Saturn means that I don't think there won't be a period of accelerated warming starting in a few years then you haven't understood anything I have actually said to you.

 

[Billy T]

... If you genuinely think that my disbelief in the astronomical connection with the alignments of Jupiter and Saturn means that I don't think there won't be a period of accelerated warming starting in a few years then you haven't understood anything I have actually said to you.

Ok it does seem like I may have copied once from milkweed second link and not realized it was from source you said I repeatedly cited.

But let me ask you in view of your last statement: Don't you think that by 2060 most of the world's population will be killed by exposure to 35 C wet bulb temperatures for an hour? Even if just resting in a chair - that is lethal. I think this very likely as every decade more GHG is being released than in the prior decade and China is every year burning more coal and now selling more than 20 million fossil fueled cars each year - not likely to change these facts. Also Africa is rapidly "advancing."

 

[Trippy]

Ok it does seem like I may have copied once from milkweed second link and not realized it was from source you said I repeatedly cited.

On the one hand I didn't say you had repeatedly cited, on the other hand I might have repeatedly said that you cited it.

But let me ask you in view of your last statement: Don't you think that by 2060 most of the world's population will be killed by exposure to 35 C wet bulb temperatures for an hour? Even if just resting in a chair - that is lethal. I think this very likely as every decade more GHG is being released than in the prior decade and China is every year burning more coal and now selling more than 20 million fossil fueled cars each year - not likely to change these facts. Also Africa is rapidly "advancing."

Let me answer your question with a question: Have you ever looked into any of the predictions about what is likely to happen should there be a 4k rise in temp? I've linked to some of it in one of my previous posts, in fact I'm 99% confident that in the post I am thinking of (the number escapes me but it's one that you seem to have ignored even though it directly addresses some of your claims regarding changing projections) contains a link to a conference that hosted a number of papers discussing precisely the implications of a 4k rise in temp. There was even an MP3 that I linked to that I suggested you should listen to - did you?