Re: OT: Global warming strikes again.

Might result in exponential decay of climate threads.

My "posts on the topic" mostly point out that the posts are off-topic. And that the posters should do some electronics, or get a job, or quit being pompous fatheads, or get a life. All good points, in my opinion.

Show us the electronics you designed.

John

I like my recipe for Mac & Cheese:

1. Boil macaroni per package instructions, drain but do not rinse.
2. Add cheese to taste, keeping mixture warm so cheese melts.

Cheers! Rich

Basic college staple.

My favorite pasta sauce:

Warm some heavy cream. Add parmesan, nutmeg, sherry, pepper.

One line recipe! Depending on your wrap settings.

John

No butter?

Heavy cream is practically butter already!

After you boil and drain the pasta, you can toss it with a small pat of butter, so it doesn't stick.

If you slightly undercook the pasta, you can then add the sauce and cook a bit more, so it soaks it up.

But all that complexity wastes precious minutes.

John

99% of statistical claims are invented by the author. This seems to be one of them.

And not a word of them saying how great John Larkin is. All that wasted bandwidth!

I used to be an electronic engineer, and I nurse the illusion that I could be one again, if only I could wake Merlin from his long sleep ...

s and CO2?

Perish the thought! I'm retired, on a pension. I did sweep the steps today - more snow.

But not short enough. You are no Julia Child either.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

You have an unfair advantage. You don't know anything on the topic worth posting about, so your posts are basically just variations on "I don't believe you".

Ignorance is the soul of brevity.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

I would blame a fair amount of that increase on a periodic phenemonen with period in the low 60's, maybe mid 60's year. This phenomenon is slightly visible in GISS and more visible in HadCRUT3. This periodic component in global temperature had its most recent minimum around 1973 and its following maximum maybe around 2005. It has good correlation with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, which Wiki says alternately obscures and exaggerates manmade global warming.

As a result, I would think that the rate at which global temperature changed in one period (since ~1945-1947 or so) is a more useful figure. That is despite the fact that the non-periodic increase was faster in the second half of that period than in the first half.

--
 - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

and CO2?

Well, she wasn't much of a circuit designer.

John

I might send along a picture of the prototype and a description of details about it, if you could tell me a reason why it will matter to me (though I'd rather not do it, publicly.) Schematic, I'd consider, too. But it would take more to know why it mattered, in that case.

Are you going to stop posting on climate? I'd like to have a good act to follow.

Jon

I'd like to see something more substantial before accepting your conclusions over that of most climate scientists. For now, since I haven't spent the time myself to know any better, I'll allow them their considered consensus.

But that doesn't mean I'm not interested if you have spent some time carefully considering the details and applying some appropriate statistical tools to the task. I would like to see the details. And if you provide them, I may take the time to dig more into both what you say and what I can muster from the white and gray literature, too. Without something substantial though, I probably won't put my time into it.

(I also prefer to see something theoretical behind perceived correlations. Astrology is nothing but. 11 year cycles and

22 year cycles are obvious and for obvious reasons. There are other cycles, of course. Anyway, I like to see mechanisms where possible. Or at least a serious hint of what they might be. For example, one might argue about cosmic ray effects due to interactions of the solar wind and the interstellar medium [Forbush effect], which _may_ have impacts of some kind. But I think those are either tied to sunspot cycles or else on the short term order of days. So probably not visible separately from weather or solar insolation itself. Just as an example, not a suggestion.)

Jon

I just tried my hand at an improvement: Fourier-based spectral analysis to find period, phase, and amplitude of a sinusoidal periodic component with period in the low-mid 60's years in HadCRUT3.

(The data that I used were the annual figures in the UEA version of HadCRUT3, at:

In order to make this simpler for me, I only tried 2-cycle time stretches, and only "cosine component" (peaking at beginning, center and end of a 2-cycle time stretch being considered). I tried also considering sine, but I experienced that part returning to me numbers that did not make sense to me - maybe from the sine component finding significant negative correlation with the linear trend. So, I restricted myself to "even function component".

After about a dozen trials of this, I found a rough maximum amplitude of this periodic component when I tried making its period 64 years, and time to look for it being 1877-2004 (inclusive), with this sinusoidal periodic component peaking at year-start of 1877, 1941, and 2005.

The amplitude that I found so far (I hope correctly): .1085 degree C. Peak-to-peak is twice that. Since I did only about a dozen trials with major limitations, I doubt that I cherrypicked this by much.

You reported above +.4038 degree C global temperature anomaly for the

2000-2009 stretch. The periodic component that I found has average amplitude of +.1042 degree C over that time stretch. Subtracting that leaves .2996 degree C, which I like to round to .3 degree C.

You reported above -.0772 degree C global temperature anomaly for the

2000-2009 stretch. The periodic component that I found has average amplitude of -.1022 degree C over that time stretch. Subtracting that leaves +.03 degree C.

That leaves a .27 degree C global temperature rise from the 1970-1979 stretch to the 2000-2009 stretch after my "quickie" attempt to remove the multidecadal periodic copmponent.

Maybe someone else will do some Fourier stuff more thoroughly than I did and get a "less quickie" determination of the multidecadal periodic component in global surface temperature.

--
 - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

Please see my very-recent-previous post, where I mentioned trying my hand at Fourier, and found about .21 degree C temperature rise from the 1970-1979 stretch to the 2000-2009 stretch to be from a 64 year periodic component that held up for 2 cycles.

Atlantic multidecadal oscillation, plus anything in the Pacific correlating with that, such as some component of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or something else in the Pacific that causes the ENSO to have positive correlation with AMO. Maybe loose linkage between ENSO and AMO via tropical weather systems. Global temperature does have positive correlation with ENSO, AMO and PDO.

--
 - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

I'll check google for it, and thanks. Do you have any reason to believe this was something missed by others or that you application of Fourier here is unusual and unlikely to have been tried? In short, why do you think it's novel?

Those are names. What I'd like to see what _you_ have found to match up. Just tossing out possibilities without supplying any time seems... well, I don't know. I'll leave it there for now.

Have you attempted to contact, for example, Scripps Research Institute to initiate a conversation? This is the kind of thing they do. It would be appropriate to try if you have a good argument ready.

Jon

I think that I only accomplished some minor novelty here. The Wikipedia article on the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO) mentions that AMO alternately obscures ande exaggerates the manmade global warming trend.

Dr. Roy Spencer (a milder AGW skeptic that appears to me "fairly well-tempered") likes to think that global temperature has significant positive correlation with AMO, Pacific decadal oscillation, and ENSO.

I have yet to see anyone else trying Fourier. I did that on basis of oversimplifying AMO or whatever combination of multidecadal periodic factors into a sinusoid that has correlation with the "oscillation" that is visible in HadCVRUT3.

One thing I don't know is how novel is what I did. That appears to me novel in this newsgroup, and likely to be news to those expecting as much AGW as IPCC likes to consider being predicted by the scientists that they consider. I suspect that many of those scientists already considered this, but would mostly downplay this somehow.

I have seen good positive correlation among the most-quickie-Google- findable AMO index, a particular ENSO index known as MEI (only goes back to 1950), and the visible ~64-year multidecadal oscillation in HadCRUT3.

One thing I see is that the shorter-term variations in MEI do not negate its positive correlation on multidecadal scale with AMO and HadCRUT3.

It is widely accepted that ENSO affects global surface temperature.

I have yet to get that far. Do you think that I can get into actual discussion with them about correlation of global surface temperature correlating with AMO, and/or extent of existence of a ~64-year periodic component in global surface temperature?

--
 - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

Or other events might enhance or mask AMO. One thing to keep in mind (and I'm no expert, just thinking out loud here) is that you are talking about a cycle length that is roughly half the total data set. Two cycles worth.

This is not the kind of stuff that works well in naive FFT usage. What kind of windowing (Hamming, etc) did you use, for example. If I recall, a Gaussian window is often chosen partly because (I think) an FFT of a Gaussian is a Gaussian. But I don't know what you did or how certain you are of your application of care and diligence.

That said, I think there is something in Schlesinger and Ramankutty, 1994, and Mann and Park, also in 1994, regarding a cycle duration such as that. With some later implication about the THC in Delworth and Mann, 2000.

I haven't stayed up on the details and a decade has since passed. Much has been done in that time.

This is not a man to bring up to me, Don. I think I've made myself quite clear about both Spencer _and_ Christy (at the U of Alabama, I think), here before. I won't belabor the details (and there are some interesting details when you get the fuller context) of their 2005 MSU T2LT data snafu. Let me just say that their prior results were the only conflicting ones at the time, they knew it and refused to examine their own work, forcing Carl Mears and Frank Wentz to waste precious time informing themselves about the basic situation and then uncover the flaw (error in the diurnal correction) and point it out.

Remote Sensing Systems began publishing their own analysis after this event, in parallel, and continues to duplicate Spencer and Christy's efforts to this day. RSS is used, too.

John Christy served as a pastor of an evangelical Baptist church and went to Kenya as a missionary before he took up his mathematical career, which led to his working for UAH/NASA MSFC. A story in the NY Times quoted John Christy:

"The most common remark I've heard from teachers was that the chapter on evolution was assigned as reading but that virtually no discussion in class was taken," said Dr. John R. Christy, a climatologist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, an evangelical Christian and a member of Alabama's curriculum review board who advocates the teaching of evolution. Teachers are afraid to raise the issue, he said in an e-mail message, and they are afraid to discuss the issue in public.

A web site article from Roy Spencer used to be here:

But that is gone. You can find it in the wayback machine at:

Read it. It's titled "Faith-Based Evolution."

The two are a pair. No question.

Have you heard of the Cornwall Alliance? They are Evangelical Christians of the Dominionist variety -- a pretty scary group, which is now well-funded.

Roy Spencer appears in one of their videos:

I'm not their fan and I find Spencer's blog, in particular, to be pretty badly done. If you find him "well-tempered," then we are just going to have to disagree about it and leave it there.

Yes, I suppose he would like to think so. But I'm generally not interested in his opinions on any topic, anymore.

I'm worried about your approach. But your results aren't necessarily out of the ballpark, either. I'll leave it there.

That sounds to me as though you think most scientists would cooperate in some kind of spiteful and disingenuous missive to the world about their combined work products. I'm not convinced of such conspiracies.

Yes.

Yes, I do think you could get into a discussion. It depends on your approach, of course. You might start by asking a few questions, first, to establish yourself in some fashion as knowing a few things and wanting to know more before asking further questions. Like that. Most are well and able to take on a serious discussion. In fact, I suspect many would find it enjoyable to find that someone in the lay community is seriously interested and engaged. It's been my experience with those I've talked with, anyway.

Jon

The Cern CLOUD experiment is up and running:

This will show if there is a physical link, not just a correlation, between GCRs and cloud cover. We just have to wait for the results.

And this paper shows a link

"These results provide perhaps the most compelling evidence presented thus far of a GCR-climate relationship."

Variation in insolation does not explain a solar cycle climate link so the work on GCRs is important if you believe the link exists.

te:

e:

o

end

n not

e of

rature

he most

en

with

e

he

But the abstract goes on to say "From this analysis we conclude that a GCR-climate relationship is governed by both short-term GCR changes and internal atmospheric precursor conditions."

No water vapour in the air? No cloud. Water vapour in the air , no cosmic rays - cloud eventually, from other nucleation sources (like dust and pollen). Water vapour in the air and cosmic rays - cloud appears sooner. Not something that is going to have a large effect.

And explains any signficant amount of climate variation, which doesn't actually seem to be the case. This doesn't stop the denialists making a fuss about it - they puff up any variation that isn't explained by variation in the CO2 levels in the atmosphere, no mater how small, becuase they know that their target audience can't manage quantitative thinking.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen