'Stadium waves' could explain lull in global warming

Oct 10, 2013
This is an image of Dr. Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Credit: Georgia Institute of Technology

One of the most controversial issues emerging from the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) is the failure of global climate models to predict a hiatus in warming of global surface temperatures since 1998. Several ideas have been put forward to explain this hiatus, including what the IPCC refers to as 'unpredictable climate variability' that is associated with large-scale circulation regimes in the atmosphere and ocean. The most familiar of these regimes is El Niño/La Niña, which are parts of an oscillation in the ocean-atmosphere system. On longer multi-decadal time scales, there is a network of atmospheric and oceanic circulation regimes, including the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

A new paper published in the journal Climate Dynamics suggests that this 'unpredictable variability' behaves in a more predictable way than previously assumed. The paper's authors, Marcia Wyatt and Judith Curry, point to the so-called 'stadium-wave' signal that propagates like the cheer at sporting events whereby sections of sports fans seated in a stadium stand and sit as a 'wave' propagates through the audience. In like manner, the 'stadium wave' climate signal propagates across the Northern Hemisphere through a network of ocean, ice, and atmospheric circulation regimes that self-organize into a collective tempo.

The stadium wave hypothesis provides a plausible explanation for the hiatus in warming and helps explain why climate models did not predict this hiatus. Further, the new hypothesis suggests how long the hiatus might last.

Building upon Wyatt's Ph.D. thesis at the University of Colorado, Wyatt and Curry identified two key ingredients to the propagation and maintenance of this stadium wave signal: the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and extent in the Eurasian Arctic shelf seas. The AMO sets the signal's tempo, while the sea ice bridges communication between ocean and atmosphere. The oscillatory nature of the signal can be thought of in terms of 'braking,' in which positive and negative feedbacks interact to support reversals of the circulation regimes. As a result, climate regimes—multiple-decade intervals of warming or cooling—evolve in a spatially and temporally ordered manner. While not strictly periodic in occurrence, their repetition is regular—the order of quasi-oscillatory events remains consistent. Wyatt's thesis found that the stadium wave signal has existed for at least 300 years.

The new study analyzed indices derived from atmospheric, oceanic and sea ice data since 1900. The linear trend was removed from all indices to focus only the multi-decadal component of natural variability. A multivariate statistical technique called Multi-channel Singular Spectrum Analysis (MSSA) was used to identify patterns of variability shared by all indices analyzed, which characterizes the 'stadium wave.' The removal of the long-term trend from the data effectively removes the response from long term climate forcing such as anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

The stadium wave periodically enhances or dampens the trend of long-term rising temperatures, which may explain the recent hiatus in rising .

"The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s," said Wyatt, an independent scientist after having earned her Ph.D. from the University of Colorado in 2012.

Curry added, "This prediction is in contrast to the recently released IPCC AR5 Report that projects an imminent resumption of the warming, likely to be in the range of a 0.3 to 0.7 degree Celsius rise in global mean surface temperature from 2016 to 2035." Curry is the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Previous work done by Wyatt on the 'wave' shows the models fail to capture the stadium-wave signal. That this signal is not seen in climate model simulations may partially explain the models' inability to simulate the current stagnation in global surface temperatures.

"Current are overly damped and deterministic, focusing on the impacts of external forcing rather than simulating the natural internal variability associated with nonlinear interactions of the coupled atmosphere-ocean system," Curry said.

The study also provides an explanation for seemingly incongruous climate trends, such as how sea ice can continue to decline during this period of stalled warming, and when the sea ice decline might reverse. After temperatures peaked in the late 1990s, hemispheric surface temperatures began to decrease, while the high latitudes of the North Atlantic Ocean continued to warm and Arctic sea ice extent continued to decline. According to the 'stadium wave' hypothesis, these trends mark a transition period whereby the future decades will see the North Atlantic Ocean begin to cool and sea ice in the Eurasian Arctic region begin to rebound.

Most interpretations of the recent decline in Arctic sea ice extent have focused on the role of anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing, with some allowance for natural variability. Declining over the last decade is consistent with the stadium wave signal, and the wave's continued evolution portends a reversal of this trend of declining sea ice.

"The stadium wave forecasts that sea ice will recover from its recent minimum, first in the West Eurasian Arctic, followed by recovery in the Siberian Arctic," Wyatt said. "Hence, the sea ice minimum observed in 2012, followed by an increase of sea ice in 2013, is suggestive of consistency with the timing of evolution of the stadium-wave signal."

The stadium wave holds promise in putting into perspective numerous observations of climate behavior, such as regional patterns of decadal variability in drought and hurricane activity, the researchers say, but a complete understanding of past and projections of future climate change requires integrating the stadium-wave signal with external climate forcing from the sun, volcanoes and anthropogenic forcing.

"How external forcing projects onto the stadium wave, and whether it influences signal tempo or affects timing or magnitude of regime shifts, is unknown and requires further investigation," Wyatt said. "While the results of this study appear to have implications regarding the hiatus in warming, the stadium wave signal does not support or refute anthropogenic . The stadium wave hypothesis seeks to explain the natural multi-decadal component of climate variability."

Explore further: NASA's HS3 mission continues with flights over Hurricane Gonzalo

More information: M.G. Wyatt, et al., "Role for Eurasian Arctic shelf sea ice in a secularly varying hemispheric climate signal during the 20th century," Climate Dynamics, 2013. link.springer.com/article/10.1… 82-013-1950-2#page-1

Related Stories

Arctic sea ice avoids last year's record low

Oct 04, 2013

This September, sea ice covering the Arctic Ocean fell to the sixth lowest extent in the satellite record, which began in 1979. All of the seven lowest extents have occurred in the last seven years, since ...

Study predicts an ice-free Arctic by the 2050s

Aug 08, 2013

(Phys.org) —Accelerated climate warming propelled by greenhouse gas emissions could bring an ice-free September to the Arctic by 2054, a University at Albany scientist predicts.

West Antarctic ice sheet formed earlier than thought

Oct 09, 2013

About 34 million years ago, Earth transitioned from a warm "greenhouse" climate to a cold "icehouse" climate, marking the transition between the Eocene and Oligocene epochs. This transition has been associated with the formation ...

Recommended for you

NASA image: Fires in the Egypt River Delta

14 hours ago

This NASA satellite image is of the Egyptian River Delta. Actively burning areas, detected by MODIS's thermal bands, are outlined in red. Each hot spot, which appears as a red mark, is an area where the thermal ...

Terra Satellite sees Tropical Storm Ana over Hawaii

14 hours ago

Tropical Storm Ana made a slow track west of the Hawaiian islands over the last couple of days, and by Oct. 20 was moving westward away from the main Hawaiian islands and heading toward the northwest Hawaiian ...

User comments : 49

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

QuixoteJ
2.2 / 5 (21) Oct 10, 2013
A good article about a fine application of some signal processing ideas in the area of climate. I think more signal processing could help shed light on what is really happening with the climate and whether or not human CO2 has any appreciable effect.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (29) Oct 10, 2013
They're right, it's turbulence that causes global cooling!
http://www.thunde...ence.htm
NikFromNYC
2.1 / 5 (33) Oct 10, 2013
Judith's blog regularly pulls five hundred heated comments after it was added to the blogroll of the central skeptical clearinghouse site WattsUpWithThat.com, a site that affects Climatology cult members like sunlight treats vampires. Her take in this year's IPCC report is caustic as can be:

"Diagnosis: paradigm paralysis, caused by motivated reasoning, oversimplification, and consensus seeking; worsened and made permanent by a vicious positive feedback effect at the climate science-policy interface."
http://judithcurr...ralysis/

Yet right here on Phys.org are nearly a dozen Gorebots supported by literal up/down ratings bots all actively feigning ignorance of starkly serious mainstream skepticism of the highly speculative and very much *not* textbook physics-settled, isolated, highly positive (2-3X) water vapor amplification of any and all warming influence on planet Earth, as if minor player CO₂ controls and constrains whole oceans!
Sean_W
1.9 / 5 (31) Oct 10, 2013
Funny how people who believe in anthropogenic catastrophic warming can discuss the warming hiatus without it being called denialist propaganda. That's one step. Are warmists going to go the next step and start calling out climate activists who don't accept the hiatus as being unscientific?

It's fortunate for us all that the heat is going to stay hidden in the undersea stadium wave until many notorious alarmists are retired.
NikFromNYC
1.9 / 5 (31) Oct 10, 2013
Physicist Lubos Motl notes the public attack on Dr. Curry:

"Gavin Schmidt has been fighting against Judith Curry for some time (on discussion pages of Curry's blog - Part I and Part II - Real Climate, Watts' blog, and other places); see e.g. Climate Progress. The ecoterrorists have even established a special anti-Curry website which is totally incoherent but it is still a testimony how much those folks dislike her, a new heretic.

What has made various Gavin Schmidts upset was Judith Curry's endorsement of Richard Muller's statement that the hockey stick-like graphs were pieces of dishonest science. No doubt, your humble correspondent agrees with this obvious observation and it is more likely than not that you agree with it, too."
http://motls.blog...idt.html

Gavin can be seen this year hilariously skirting around real public debate, quite literally, and quite tellingly:
http://tinypic.co...&s=5
NikFromNYC
1.8 / 5 (30) Oct 10, 2013
"While the results of this study appear to have implications regarding the hiatus in warming, the stadium wave signal does not support or refute anthropogenic global warming. The stadium wave hypothesis seeks to explain the natural multi-decadal component of climate variability."

The profound implication here actually very much indeed refutes anthropogenic global warming as skeptic Tim Channon, whose computers were rudely seized in the wake of Climategate, noted in a public response to a call for policy questions in the UK:

"If the negative phases of natural variations are sufficiently geo-effective in the 21st century to cancel the alleged effect of extra airborne co2 on surface temperature, how much did their positive phases contribute to the warming of the late 20th century?"
http://tallbloke....mmittee/
VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (22) Oct 10, 2013
"Physicist Lubos Motl" - NikkieTard

Hasn't been a physicist since he was fired from his university due to mental instability.
runrig
4 / 5 (20) Oct 10, 2013
The profound implication here actually very much indeed refutes anthropogenic global warming as skeptic Tim Channon, … blah blah conspiracy crap

Even if it were the case it of course would not refute anything.
The "pause" (global air temp – not the ocean which holds > 90% of the climate heat ) still shows warming. If this were a natural (cyclic) then it would be going -ve to return the cycle to a balance. Otherwise the net Solar energy is building. More in than out. Hence your/his query
how much did their positive phases contribute to the warming of the late 20th century
is specious, as that sharp rise should be nullified by any counter swing of the pendulum.
It's a cycle, as clearly stated … a recycling of heat in the system – it doesn't just disappear – it's stored somewhere, so if there were no overlying warming signal then it would return to the same starting point. It isn't doing. Conclusion there is still a NET inflow of energy. Now where is that coming Nik?
freethinking
1.8 / 5 (34) Oct 10, 2013
I have been told by many AGW believers that temperatures have been going up, I was ridiculed for saying there is a lull for the last 15 years.

So now even the AGW cultist leaders are being forced to admit there is a lull.
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (18) Oct 10, 2013
WOW Nic that was the most extreme case if gish-gallop I have seen in quite a while.

Typical.
GSwift7
3.6 / 5 (20) Oct 10, 2013
I don't care to enter the mud-slinging contest, but I would like to make a comment on the original article.

If the stadium wave hypothesis can be shown to be correct, it would be a great thing for practical, every day uses, such as agriculture and infrastructure planning.

For example, you might want to change the water reservior release rates in the Missouri river headwaters if you know that either drought or heavy snowfall is likely in a given year. If we can get better at predicting weather trends six months in advance, it would be a MAJOR accomplishment for human civilization. Noticing trends and patterns in the AMO, PDO, AO, etc. and being able to forcast them, would be a really big deal for everyone. Those patterns affect your daily life in ways you don't even know, such as food and clothing prices, or electricity costs. Predicting their trends six months in advance would immensely reduce the cost of some things for consumers, maybe even healthcare.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (26) Oct 10, 2013
In fact, climate change comes from chemtrails, the program of doping the atmosphere with weather modification chemicals. It began around 1950, when jets began to be used worldwide. That's when the number of tornadoes per year stopped being a constant 180 and began increasing to about 1200 or more now. It's also the year the cirrus intortus cloud began to be seen. In 1997, chemtrails became visible in huge numbers, because in that year, the atmosphere became saturated and new chemical precipitated out. That's also the year the rapid fire progress of climate change began. The lull in temperature rise can come form the fact that the atmosphere is saturated so that condition is not changing.
runrig
3.6 / 5 (20) Oct 10, 2013
I have been told by many AGW believers that temperatures have been going up, I was ridiculed for saying there is a lull for the last 15 years.

So now even the AGW cultist leaders are being forced to admit there is a lull.


Err - you are aware that 70% of the Earth is covered by Ocean.yes?

Then why such a comment?

Do you not believe that the Oceans would hold and store heat - and as Oceans are fluid - they will move that heat around - in 3D to boot ( and it can be hidden due haloclinic stratification).

Given that that would be obvious to even a half sentient being, then why do you concentrate on air temperatures (which have still produced the hottest 5 years on record). Perhaps it's simplistic implication supports your ideological standpoint?
runrig
4.4 / 5 (19) Oct 10, 2013
In fact, climate change comes from chemtrails, the program of doping the atmosphere with weather modification chemicals. It began around 1950, when jets began to be used worldwide. .............


Julian:
All pics I have seen of *chemtrails* are in fact "contrails". I'm sorry it's just obvious to a meteorologist. The clue is in the moisture content of the upper troposphere. ie it's high - usually with cirrus cloud evident, often from an approaching warm or receding cold front. It's just a myth of the Google age and I'm so sorry you've fallen for it.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (31) Oct 10, 2013
(1) Chemtrails are one of the very few banned topics on the main skeptic site, another being data devoid theoretical physics claims that there is no classic greenhouse effect.

(2) VendicarE (Scott Nudds) is one of most active Net trolls of all time, screenshots of his regular death threats being collected here:
http://s11.postim...eats.gif

(3) Pointing out scientific fraud and public slander is in no way defined as being "mud slinging" but is exactly defined as being muckraking and whistleblowing.

(4) As a climate modeler, runrig is one of the very few people most aware that ocean heat content rise claims ridiculously fail to include a simple heat capacity conversion to temperature rise based in the physical properties of water and that this conversion, also carried out by Lubos Motl, falsifies all alarmist headlines since corresponding temperature rise is insignificantly tiny:
http://motls.blog...but.html
julianpenrod
1.1 / 5 (27) Oct 10, 2013
Among other things, note the telling misuse of language by runrig. "All pics I have seen of 'chremtrails' are in fact 'contrails'". All the pictures runrig has seen are pictures. The items in the pictures are not contrails no matter how much you call them that. Contrails dissipate swiftly. Among other things, too, note that there is not consistent collection of massive filling of the sky with chemtrail vapor lanes before 1997. Odd isolated photographs of maybe three trails, from a nearby air show, might be offered, but it was after 1997 that skies would be filled with a dozen or more persistent vapor lanes.
Shootist
1.3 / 5 (27) Oct 10, 2013
There is a "lull" in Global Warming because the models used to forecast change are FUBAR (that is, FuckedUpBeyondRecognition).

No other explanation is needed, or necessary.

"The polar bears will be fine. - Freeman Dyson.
mosahlah
1.3 / 5 (19) Oct 11, 2013
If they are going to dance, at least they should play some music and make it entertaining.
Eikka
1.5 / 5 (17) Oct 11, 2013
That this signal is not seen in climate model simulations may partially explain the models' inability to simulate the current stagnation in global surface temperatures.


The important question is, if they can't predict the current lull, but they can predict the warming up to that point, then where is the stadium wave effect before that point?

Obviously you can't have it both ways. If the current models don't take the stadium wave effect into account, then the correct predictions they have made are simply because of happenstance - an example of a broken clock showing the right time at least two times a day.

More importantly, the fact that they do produce "hindcasts" that match measured history is an indicator that their predictions are false - they ascribe the observed changes in warming and cooling due to the stadium wave effect to other things that didn't cause them, to fit the model to the data, and when these other things change the model starts to output nonsense.
Eikka
1.3 / 5 (15) Oct 11, 2013
More importantly, the fact that they do produce "hindcasts" that match measured history is an indicator that their predictions are false


Or the other option: that the measured history is false and mis-interpreted to fit the models to eliminate the missing factor, or both.

Either way, such large disrepancies between model and reality caused by a single factor is an indication that something is very very seriously off.
thingumbobesquire
1.2 / 5 (17) Oct 11, 2013
I much prefer Prof. Tarr and Dr. Feathers climate change model: rectimus non fingo.
thingumbobesquire
1.2 / 5 (18) Oct 11, 2013
I much prefer Prof. Tarr and Dr. Feathers climate change model: rectimus non fingo.


And it has the elegant theoretical advantage of being purely holistic.
thingumbobesquire
1 / 5 (17) Oct 11, 2013
I much prefer Prof. Tarr and Dr. Feathers climate change model: rectimus non fingo.


And it has the elegant theoretical advantage of being purely holistic.
PsycheOne
1.5 / 5 (22) Oct 11, 2013
The word hiatus refers to a brief pause. How does the author of this article know that we are in the middle of a pause? Might we not be at the peak of a parbola? Or on a lengthy plateau. No, it's a hiatus because global warming is a belief system, not science. Whatever the data, it support global warming.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Oct 11, 2013
Contrails dissipate swiftly. Among other things, too, note that there is not consistent collection of massive filling of the sky with chemtrail vapor lanes before 1997 …


Julian:
I spent all my professional life observing clouds both by day and night and it's instinctive now, so I still do.

Contrails do not ALWAYS ( you see the qualifier? ) dissipate quickly and it's the same now as it's ever been … see link (includes historic pics/comments)

http://contrailsc...ntrails/

They only persist because the air at that height is moist, cold enough and general uplift helps. You can see this from sat pics in the zone of moisture before cirrus ahead of a warm front arrives. The moisture released by the jet engines combustion is not as easily evaporated on mixing with this "moister" air. It's no mystery - just basic meteorology. But then that's what most of my posts on here are about correcting incorrect met and climate myths.

runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 11, 2013
More importantly, the fact that they do produce "hindcasts" that match measured history is an indicator that their predictions are false - they ascribe the observed changes in warming and cooling due to the stadium wave effect to other things that didn't cause them, to fit the model to the data, and when these other things change the model starts to output nonsense.


The "stadium effect" is a new theory – not established science.

The current "pause" (in global air temp only) is due to a short-term cyclic climate fluctuation – which needs time to play out. It is just a redistribution of internal heat in the climate system (air + oceans) and 30 yrs generally sees us through these.
GCM's cannot forecast these short-term fluctuations and just as "weather" is not included in them (not necessary+impossible) they are too just "noise" in the system that play out over the TOP of the general warming trend.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 11, 2013
As a climate modeler, runrig is one of the very few people most aware that ocean heat content rise claims ridiculously fail to include a simple heat capacity conversion to temperature rise based in the physical properties of water and that this conversion, also carried out by Lubos Motl, falsifies all alarmist headlines since corresponding temperature rise is insignificantly tiny:
http://motls.blog...but.html

You seem to make a habit of getting things wrong Nik … I'm not and never have been a climate modeller – I was a practising weather forecaster working in both the military and commercial fields. I just examined and understood models, I had no hand in making them.

Also your touching faith in Denialist heroes seems to be misplaced … again….

From: ftp://140.90.235....at05.pdf

Similarly, the heat content (Ha) associated with a mean temperature anomaly of the atmosphere, DTa (k), can be written:
Ha = macpa▲Dta
In which ma is the mass of the .. cont
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 11, 2013
cont

(5.3x10^18 kg) and cpa is the specific heat of dry air at constant pressure (1x10^3 J/kg.k). ...... By equating these two relations we find that DTa = 1056 (DTo). THUS, A MEAN TEMPERATURE CHANGE OF 0.1K OF THE WORLD OCEAN WOULD CORRESPOND ROUGHLY TO A MEAN TEMPERATURE CHANGE OF 100K OF THE GLOBAL ATMOSPHERE IF ALL THE HEAT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS OCEAN ANOMALY WAS INSTANTANEOUSLY TRANSFERRED FROM THE OCEAN TO THE ATMOSPHERE. . This of course will not happen but this computation illustrates the enormous heat capacity of the ocean versus the atmosphere.

Therefore Motl's calculation is stupidity at best (from a String theorist?) and the equating of 0.065C deltaT in oceans with a deltaT in the atmosphere is off by a factor of 1000 (Clue – the mass of the atmosphere is ~1000th of the Oceans ).

Err - Motl's heat content change would therefore (if transferred to the atmosphere) heat it up by 65C !

No there's no extra heat being hidden in the Oceans. None at all.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 11, 2013
(3) Pointing out scientific fraud and public slander is in no way defined as being "mud slinging" but is exactly defined as being muckraking and whistleblowing.


Would you say that's what I've just done with the "fraud" Motl then Nik? - and you, of course for going along with it, whilst not investigating whether it was, in fact, correct?

Clue: Science does that - it's called peer-review.
That's why Motl wasn't doing science.
Pot calling the kettle black isn't it?
Or hypocrisy for short.
Eikka
1.5 / 5 (15) Oct 11, 2013
The "stadium effect" is a new theory – not established science.


Well...

If it doesn't turn out valid, there's still the problem of the models not explaining the current pause.

If it does turn out valid, it proves that the models can't explain the current pause because they're simply wrong.

GCM's cannot forecast these short-term fluctuations


Yet the climate models hindcast these same short-term fluctuations in the past?

Surely the fluctuations existed before just as much as today, so, the models must be able to reproduce them to produce such a close match to the temperature data, so the question becomes why would the models fail now?

The most likely answer is that the models follow some correlating phenomenon that is believed to drive the warming, but simply co-exists with the real driver and does not necessarily follow from it. When the actual driver separates from the correlate, the predictions go wrong since they're following the wrong horse.

tadchem
1.3 / 5 (14) Oct 11, 2013
I don't understand how a standing wave within one region of the atmospheric circulation can produce a significant (measurable) effect on the thermal energy to the entire global atmosphere/hydrosphere/surface. Where's the heat?
freethinking
1.2 / 5 (21) Oct 11, 2013
runnig, now you say all the scientist who predicted that temperatures would rise from 1998-2013 KNEW that there would be a lull, yet they lambasted people who said that there is a lull.

Ok..... I believe you just like I believe anything that comes out of a Progressives mouth.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 11, 2013
Yet the climate models hindcast these same short-term fluctuations in the past?


I'm not sure they do ... as I said they're irrelevant on long time scales.
Please understand (many cant) Climate has internal cycles (ENSO is a major one) that just redistribute heat about (sea & air ) but the total heat content averaged out in the system is the same. What matters is net incoming vs net outgoing radiation and that is the imbalance that GCM's work on and a time scale of ~15 years is irrelevant in the general trend of the warming caused by that imbalance. It's like the (erroneous) thinking that climate is "chaotic" and cant be predicted at all. Well it doesn't matter in time scales of ~ 100 years, just as weather doesn't matter.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 11, 2013
runnig, now you say all the scientist who predicted that temperatures would rise from 1998-2013 KNEW that there would be a lull, yet they lambasted people who said that there is a lull


Sorry? err, I don't remember saying that. Wait let me check..... Nope - I definitely didn't say that.

GCM's have always forecast random lulls. It's just that when they WILL OCCUR CANNOT be forecast. The short-term cycles involved have unknown periods, or at least unreliable ones - so if they were included and it was 90 deg out of phase then the error would be doubled. They are averaged out. Why would you expect a steady curve??

They have NOT lambasted people (another internet myth). There clearly is a lull in comparison with what came before BUT global air temp is still rising and crucially so are ocean temps (at depth). See my post below re some outrageous disinformation on that.

The criticism comes from the "lull" being trumpeted as proof that AGW is wrong - it's not - get over it.
orti
1.6 / 5 (21) Oct 11, 2013
Does her argument make sense? How do I know? I do now that AGW is less science and more environmentalist religion fed by big government funding for bought-and-paid-for research. I know its political when many climate change scientists have degrees in political science rather than the hard sciences. I know its political when main spokesman Algore suggests that "deniers" (as in holocaust-?) should be made to pay a political and economic price for not towing his line. I know its political when big government in the US and Germany insists that the IPCC report deemphasize the "hiatus". I know that the models this "settled science" is based on are not ready for prime time, but that they want me to turn over control of my everyday life to government anyway.
orti
1.2 / 5 (19) Oct 11, 2013
Does her argument make sense? How do I know? I do now that AGW is less science and more environmentalist religion fed by big government funding for bought-and-paid-for research. I know its political when many climate change scientists have degrees in political science rather than the hard sciences. I know its political when main spokesman Algore suggests that "deniers" (as in holocaust-?) should be made to pay a political and economic price for not towing his line. I know its political when big government in the US and Germany insists that the IPCC report deemphasize the "hiatus". I know that the models this "settled science" is based on are not ready for prime time, but that they want me to turn over control of my everyday life to government anyway.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (24) Oct 12, 2013
The criticism comes from the "lull" being trumpeted as proof that AGW is wrong - it's not - get over it.

Oh, mighty soothsayer, what be the lotto numbers for Saturday night? Do you read tea leaves and palms as well? You must if you "know" this is only a lull.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 12, 2013
Oh, mighty soothsayer, what be the lotto numbers for Saturday night? Do you read tea leaves and palms as well? You must if you "know" this is only a lull.


You see - now that statement makes it clear that you are not prepared to accept any scientific advice on the basis of what has been learned up to the present and what science can say about that for the future. So we throw out all weather forecasts (eg) on the basis that they MAY be wrong for example. despite the majority being correct (in the broader scale - not minor details like hit/miss showers for example). Now is that really is sensible. That is really taking the glass half-empty adage to an extreme. It makes sense to dismiss all the useful advice given by forecasting on the basis that occasionally it will be wrong? Because you choose to skew your perception towards the bizarre conclusion that a 5% wrong set outweighs the 95% correct set.
Give me strength.
beleg
5 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2013
A signal is like a note. If I randomly add another note to the note already sounding I can not tell you exactly how the result will sound.
Moebius
2.1 / 5 (19) Oct 12, 2013
When a stable system receives positive feedback it goes into oscillation, that's the model that I think best describes our climate. That is what led me to predict 20 years ago the wildly shifting weather that we see now. Only a fool would not see how much positive feedback we are adding to the system and think it won't have any effect. This lull is just a low in that oscillation, expect a swing in the other direction soon if the model is correct.
julianpenrod
1.1 / 5 (20) Oct 12, 2013
During the "Red Scare" Fifties, at least, if there were persistent, non dissipating trails of vapor anywhere in the sky, it would produce alarms, alerts, calls to the police, newspaper stories and official disavowals. There were none, therefore, there were no cases of persistent vapor lanes. Smoke trails from performing planes or skywriting or crop dusting are not chemtrails. As I said, there are no verifiable collections of innumerably many photographs of dozens of chemtrails such as were available in the early 2000's. In those days, a single day in one spot could produce more pictures of chemtrails than all the photographs of sky writing or crop dusting chemtrail deniers post. And the heat of the sun causes ice crystals in contrails to dissolve, they do not remain for any appreciable time.
Neinsense99
2.6 / 5 (20) Oct 12, 2013
Does her argument make sense? How do I know? I do now that AGW is less science and more environmentalist religion fed by big government funding for bought-and-paid-for research. I know its political when many climate change scientists have degrees in political science rather than the hard sciences. I know its political when main spokesman Algore suggests that "deniers" (as in holocaust-?) should be made to pay a political and economic price for not towing his line. I know its political when big government in the US and Germany insists that the IPCC report deemphasize the "hiatus". I know that the models this "settled science" is based on are not ready for prime time, but that they want me to turn over control of my everyday life to government anyway.

Clearly your omniscience missed the fact that you were submitting your comment twice.
Neinsense99
2.5 / 5 (18) Oct 12, 2013
A signal is like a note. If I randomly add another note to the note already sounding I can not tell you exactly how the result will sound.

I think you just described how most recent covers of classic tunes are made. Put it through an echo chamber, add rap lyrics, and -- presto! -- you have 'creativity'.
VendicarE
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2013
"During the "Red Scare" Fifties, at least, if there were persistent, non dissipating trails of vapor anywhere in the sky, it would produce alarms, alerts, calls to the police, newspaper stories and official disavowals." - JulianTard

Translation: "I imagine that there would have been mass reports of contrails in the sky in the 1950's". therefore there weren't any.

Bahahahahahaha.........

Julian puts the Tard in JulianTard.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (18) Oct 13, 2013
You see - now that statement makes it clear that you are not prepared to accept any scientific advice on the basis of what has been learned up to the present and what science can say about that for the future.

The idea these incomplete climate models or meteorologists are better predictors than a crystal ball or a ouija board is lunacy. There is a statement on every mutual fund prospectus;
"past performance is not an indication of future performance."
There is one aspect of that statement that is not true, the past performance of the earth's climate is that of continual change in response to the multitude of factors, known and unknown.
VendicarE
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2013
"The idea these incomplete climate models or meteorologists are better predictors than a crystal ball or a ouija board is lunacy" - Can'tDriveTooStupid

Yet the skill of meteorologists at predicting daily weather is generally 5 days - much better than a ouija board.

Think of all the places that springs are used. All are modeled with incomplete models of how those springs work.

You did know that, didn't you TardieBoy?

djr
4 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2013
Cantdrive - "The idea these incomplete climate models or meteorologists are better predictors than a crystal ball or a ouija board is lunacy."

I think Cantdrive's logic here is something like this - 'because we can't predict with 100% accuracy when or where an accident will occur, we should not study the issue of traffic accidents'

Personally I support science - which to me is the attempt to understand our world. Dr. Curry would I am sure concurr - that it is better for us to study the climate - and unfold our understanding of this complex system - even if our understand is very incomplete - than to be a Cantdrive - and stick our heads up our backsides.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (17) Oct 13, 2013
Yet the skill of meteorologists at predicting daily weather is generally 5 days - much better than a ouija board.

I know you're pretty stupid, but last I checked this was about "climate" and not "weather". My comment about meteorologists predictions of the climate was directed at runrig and his belief that what he believes is an absolute certainty.

I think Cantdrive's logic here is something like this - 'because we can't predict with 100% accuracy when or where an accident will occur, we should not study the issue of traffic accidents'

Didn't say anything about that ridiculous notion, my logic is there are no certainties in fortune telling.
djr
4 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2013
Didn't say anything about that ridiculous notion, my logic is there are no certainties in fortune telling.

And who is fortune telling? Scientists are studying the climate - and trying to develop models that will give us insight into the future of our climate. Seems like a good idea to me - better than sticking your head up your ass and then being surprised by what happens.