tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post748508307243157759..comments2024-03-28T02:54:46.537-04:00Comments on The TOF Spot: A lizard riding a horseTheOFloinnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-39944354635483215862015-07-04T22:13:41.017-04:002015-07-04T22:13:41.017-04:00Iran across the usage in an article about system m...Iran across the usage in an article about system modelling a number of decades ago.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-26055573189363935902015-07-04T21:25:18.087-04:002015-07-04T21:25:18.087-04:00So this is the report?
http://www.friendsofscie...So this is the report? <br /><br />http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Solar%20Cycle%20-%20Friis-Chr_Lassen-.pdf<br /><br />I don't understand why the cycle periods are smoothed. One is not supposed to smooth time series as it increases correlation. <br /><br />I've never seen viscosity used this way. The term employed is usually inertia, sometimes thermal inertia. Wm Searshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02765687822090045003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-91949608524774540262015-07-04T20:12:48.317-04:002015-07-04T20:12:48.317-04:00No the original by Christensen and Lassen was back...No the original by Christensen and Lassen was back in 1991, long before the whole thing was subordinated to politics. The article you linked to was from 2012, and concluded something on the order of 0.4°C due to solar activity, with the relation being three years out of phase, due to various delays within the solar process. <br /><br />Viscosity in a system is the delay in system response following a change in the inputs. For example, when a change is made to a large glass furnace -- a different melt, change in gas, etc. -- it will be three days before it shows up in the properties of the glass. Every system with feedback will have some kind of viscosity in it. The ocean temperature stays warm for some time after sundown, for example. The earth will stay warm for some time after the heat is turned down. Etc. etc. <br /><br />Who said Z cannot be detected? Here is a useful paper on "Lurking Variables"<br />http://www1.cmc.edu/pages/faculty/MONeill/Math152/Handouts/Joiner.pdfTheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-75695760649338677942015-07-04T19:51:41.895-04:002015-07-04T19:51:41.895-04:00You know what flips my balderdash alert system?
T...You know what flips my balderdash alert system?<br /><br />The ~60-year Mauna Loa CO2-level rise is almost too linear.<br /><br />I am always suspicious of such pretty "natural" linearity. Underneath, there **usually** abides bad assumptions or simplifications.<br /><br /><br />JJBAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-31443258294044745152015-07-04T18:30:36.132-04:002015-07-04T18:30:36.132-04:00Is this it (Figure 6a)?
http://www.dmi.dk/filea...Is this it (Figure 6a)? <br /><br />http://www.dmi.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/Popart/solbetydningfravejret.pdf<br /><br />Unfortunately I do not read Danish. In any case Figure 6b is not as encouraging. <br /><br />Your lurking variable Z is something that effects sunspot period and terrestrial temperature but cannot itself be detected? Is this not special pleading? Wm Searshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02765687822090045003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-37542062424407023772015-07-04T16:19:33.960-04:002015-07-04T16:19:33.960-04:00I don't understand your viscosity comment. Th...I don't understand your viscosity comment. The frequency doesn't have to be exactly eleven years to be seen. The sunspot cycle doesn't just effect the solar isolation but many other properties of the sun (magnetic field, solar wind etc). You have claimed that a variation of the sunspot cycle is seen where the cycle itself is not. How can this work? As to the correlation, could you give me the link to your second graph (the Danish data). <br /><br />Certainly there must be reasons why the climate changes as you say on the order of hundreds of years. Many oceanographic cycles have been identified as you reference, that must be important and no doubt there are others yet to be discovered. All one big chaotic stew, no doubt. On longer scales there are the Milankovitch cycles which is a type of solar variation. However if you are going to invoke a sunspot cycle effect you must explain why it is not seen. I suspect it is lost in the noise and buried by other much stronger effects. Wm Searshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02765687822090045003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-78088114004512398122015-07-03T15:50:09.212-04:002015-07-03T15:50:09.212-04:00If it were the only factor, you would expect to se...If it were the only factor, you would expect to see a marked cycle; but who says it's the only factor? Systems have viscosity, and if this runs longer than the 11-year average, then it's the frequency of the max and not the amplitude that matters. And who says that the direct irradiance is the operative variable? Two things may correlate without any direct causal connection between them. Both X and Y may correlate because each is the consequence of a lurking variable Z. <br /><br />There must be a reason why the earth has been growing steadily cooler during the 3000 years since the Minoan Warm Period. The Holocene average looks to be about 4.5°C until about 1000 BC and has dropped 1.5°C during the three millennia since then. The Minoan Warm matched the Holocene peak, and the Roman Warm, Medieval Warm, and Modern Warm have produced successively lower peaks, judging by the Greenland ice core data: 4.7°C, 4.0°C, and 3.3°C, resp.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-37849488995938387862015-07-03T03:34:29.421-04:002015-07-03T03:34:29.421-04:00There are also articles like this:
http://wattsupw...There are also articles like this:<br />http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/19/97-articles-refuting-the-97-consensus-on-global-warming/<br /><br />collecting refutations of the various possible 97% stories.<br />There are also interviews with authors of some of those articles that were claimed to support man-made global warming, including the guy who was pointing out that global warming matched up with sun spots. No mention of man's influence. Foxfierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10161683096247890834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-32513185213220436532015-07-02T19:52:19.905-04:002015-07-02T19:52:19.905-04:00Any solar influence to be taken seriously must sho...Any solar influence to be taken seriously must show an eleven year effect on temperature. Your Danish graph (source?) of the effect of the period of the sunspot cycle is a second order effect and thus if it is there the roughly eleven year cycle must be stronger. The solar insolation is easily measured. In this regard see: <br /><br />http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/10/solar-periodicity/<br /><br />http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/23/maunder-and-dalton-sunspot-minima/<br /><br />Seven factors, seriously? <br />Wm Searshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02765687822090045003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-1516392284984201352015-07-02T18:18:04.195-04:002015-07-02T18:18:04.195-04:00And yet there it is. With seven factors you can al...And yet there it is. With seven factors you can always fit a model as long as you can adjust the coefficients. Since these "seven" factors "explain" all the variation, any attempt to find an eighth factor is frustrated. The R^2 will barely budge. Besides, the solar influence may already be there, buried inside some other factor. (E.g., the MDO may be due to solar influence; likewise cloud cover due to cosmic rays due to solar magnetic field.) Difficult to find because the principle components used in the models are not generally the measured variables one started with. TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-87630385231334095672015-07-02T18:12:26.680-04:002015-07-02T18:12:26.680-04:00Typo fixed. Thanks. Typo fixed. Thanks. TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-580533832358563642015-07-02T16:38:10.477-04:002015-07-02T16:38:10.477-04:00"The IPCC trends are based largely on the hea..."The IPCC trends are based largely on the heavy red line, which hindsight is not showing to be the up-cycle from the bottom of the previous trough to the top of the current one (1970-2000)."<br /><br />I think you meant to say "now" and not "not"? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-8776881866452703862015-07-01T13:36:16.625-04:002015-07-01T13:36:16.625-04:00Willis Eschenbach at WUWT has put in a lot of effo...Willis Eschenbach at WUWT has put in a lot of effort in looking for the solar signal in a variety of climate data (direct temperature and proxies). He has yet to find one. Leif Svalgaard is of the same opinion. This should be taken into account in the above. Wm Searshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02765687822090045003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-360407629642557372015-07-01T09:56:08.988-04:002015-07-01T09:56:08.988-04:00On a more general note, one of the early studies a...On a more general note, one of the early studies and one which has been very often cited for "global warming" was a study by Ichtiaque Rasool.<br /><br />AND he admitted fairly and squarely at least, that what could be told of the carbon cycle was too tentative. <a href="http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.fr/2010/09/ichtiaque-rasool-systeme-terre-pas.html" rel="nofollow">Si vous lisez le français ... clicquez le lien vers ma revue de ceci.</a>Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-79730869161225450502015-07-01T09:48:53.160-04:002015-07-01T09:48:53.160-04:00"Venus, Earth, and Mars all had 95% CO2 atmos...<i>"Venus, Earth, and Mars all had 95% CO2 atmospheres to start with"</i><br /><br />How many scientists were around taking measures of it back then?Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-68024697361446756422015-06-30T19:52:10.411-04:002015-06-30T19:52:10.411-04:00Re: Martian atmosphere. Right, and also total sola...Re: Martian atmosphere. Right, and also total solar irradiance -- Mars is farther from the campfire. <br /><br />Interestingly, Venus, Earth, and Mars all had 95% CO2 atmospheres to start with, but on earth, life began and ate up a lot of the CO2, exhaling O2 and making the whole shebang possible. TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-43544235824333169212015-06-30T19:48:38.372-04:002015-06-30T19:48:38.372-04:00I'm not so sure that 97% do. We should not cit...I'm not so sure that 97% do. We should not cite the 97% agree on X until we're quite sure what X was defined to be. In fact:<br /><i>The point of contention is a peer-reviewed study published last year [by John Cook and coauthors] . The scientists examined 4,014 abstracts on climate change and found 97.2 percent of the papers assumed humans <b>play a role</b> in global warming.</i><br /><br />"Play a role" is not the same as "catastrophic." Most of the <b><i>skeptics</i></b> believe humans "play a role." That's how you get a 97%. The question is how much of a role (and how bad the effects)?<br />http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/27/the-97-feud/<br /><br /><i>“I’m a hopeless romantic for the Enlightenment: I’d rather convince people with arguments than with an appeal to authority or consensus,” Tol said via email.</i><br />same source<br /><br /><i>Nuccitelli’s survey results are either the result of a comprehensive failure to understand the climate debate, or an attempt to divide it in such a way as to frame the result for political ends.</i><br />http://judithcurry.com/2013/07/26/the-97-consensus/ <br /><br />http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/28/climate-change-no-consensus-on-consensus/TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-73213110111485454172015-06-30T19:35:06.361-04:002015-06-30T19:35:06.361-04:00But the Martian atmosphere is also a lot thinner, ...But the Martian atmosphere is also a lot thinner, right? That would be the "something else" involved which helps explain why the greenhouse effect on Mars is so weak, right? In any case, I like your comment that we're still in the "phlogiston and caloric" phase of all this.jmhenryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10108615537455993311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-1089782581026922642015-06-30T19:27:58.415-04:002015-06-30T19:27:58.415-04:00(I know that you mentioned trends / careers, etc.,...(I know that you mentioned trends / careers, etc., but is that the only reason?)paul h.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09474508052453593555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-76321892463276434452015-06-30T19:27:03.777-04:002015-06-30T19:27:03.777-04:00Interesting, I see ... why do you think that so ma...Interesting, I see ... why do you think that so many climate scientists (97% or so) hold the catastrophic view?paul h.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09474508052453593555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-88032783346821457072015-06-30T19:07:42.546-04:002015-06-30T19:07:42.546-04:00Of course, they do. But how much? The relationship...Of course, they do. But how much? The relationship is logarithmic. That is, successive doublings of CO2 produce progressively smaller increases in temperature. Billions of tons always sounds worse than fractions of a percent. In order to make the CO2 effect apocalyptic enough to motive wealth transfer, we must posit a host of "feedback" effects that are not so well-established. It's early days yet and we're still in the "phlogiston and caloric" phase.<br /><br />The Martian atmosphere is 95% CO2, so there must be <i>something</i> else involved, else Mars would be sweltering hot.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-56276745338469780232015-06-30T19:02:12.211-04:002015-06-30T19:02:12.211-04:00Sincerely curious, wouldn't you say that metha...Sincerely curious, wouldn't you say that methane and CO2 cause the earth to get warmer? And isn't it also true that we've released billions of tons of these gases in the last few decades? I hope that you're right but I wonder ... paul h.http://google.comnoreply@blogger.com