WebHubTelescope (@whut) | February 4, 2014 at 4:30 pm |
“one needs sophisticated approaches to pull them out of the climate signal.”
Simple low pass band pass splitter drop them out with only a few lines of code. No distortions or other higher order maths to verify.
Just averages and sums of averages.
They evidently left off teh CO2 control knob because as everyone knows nothing ever goes up without one.
Quite a bit really. Firstly there is the added ‘noise’ from using a sub-sampled continuous MA such as Month! That ‘leaks’ the weather into the signal straight away. Then there is the weather itself. If you have ‘half’ a high or low at the Month sampling point you see half in two months. A few days of movement and it will be in one or the other. And then there is jitter. Firstly at Month 28,30,31 and at Year 365,366. All plays havoc with what we have.
This because of the data you’re using for input. The daily data I’ve been working with isn’t good enough, but it’s way better than the data you find at woodfortrees (and it’s not really their fault, it’s the easy to get data). Now I agree we don’t have the data to look beyond 20ish year cycles, but we are collecting it now.
Really this all should be a continuous high frequency sampled data stream such as hourly and never down sampled from there! Then we really would have a high quality signal to deal with.
I work with daily data, no it’s not hourly, and it’s be nice if the specific values were all logged with Tmn and Tmx, but it’s what I could find, there are hourly sources, but I don’t think they go back very far, GSoD is full of holes prior to 1974, worse before 1950, even worse prior to 1940.
But there’s enough there to reconstruct daily weather movements, and patterns, maybe even do a decent GAT at least for areas with stations.
Weather is the signal.
True, because forcing functions such as TSI variations are not perfect sinusoids and have often a pulsed character, all the harmonics are there. So for the Hale cycle of 22 years, I discriminate cleanly the 22/3, 22/4, 22/5, etc harmonics.
And it is true that nonlinearity in mixing is required to generate the heterodyne tidal signals, otherwise it all averages out to mush.
Mi Cro | February 4, 2014 at 4:51 pm |
“This because of the data you’re using for input. The daily data I’ve been working with isn’t good enough, but it’s way better than the data you find at woodfortrees (and it’s not really their fault, it’s the easy to get data).”
I’ve changed from the WFT to the original sources but Monthly is the only long series, large coverage set available AFAIK.
There are some Daily sets that might be of use. I plan on doing some work on CET, as that is the most prestigious, first.
Using LP as I do, the larger the number of samples included, the better the signal to noise ratio gets. Large numbers rule.
I just want the accounting for the signals we can se to be done before we go looking for finer detail stuff.
Go have a look at NCDC’s Global Summary of Days, compared to many it’s pretty good, and it’s daily.
Chris Q, at 12:05 PM You wrote: It may be more complicated than that.
I fully agree for many reasons, First the analogy to a watch with many gears was meant to stimulate a visual image.. As described it would be a mechanism that would produce a linear result only.
One of the faults (of many) that I find in models is that they are trying to produce a linear result from a chaotic system, without understanding many of the variables within.
So I suppose I could try adding something to the watch to produce something other than the linear time component; that is add a multi gear transmission with several gear ranges, but for the imagery, I believe I will have already served the purpose.
What I am happy to see in this thread is that contributors are considering
the ‘big picture’ .
Too often rather small studies both in area and length of time are being used to extrapolate beyond any reasonable boundary of accuracy.
RLH, Is your approach able to discriminate between a 8.85 year period and a 9 year period? How about 11 and 11.86?
These doubly heterodyned signals are thought by certain skeptics to hold the key for really long term variations in the climate.
Actually there is close to 180W/M2 in the entire band @ -37C.
R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist | February 5, 2014 at 3:17 pm |
“Are you still insisting that there is 179 w/m^2 LW coming up from the ground in Antarctica as you did in this comment earlier today”
I’m not insisting. A blackbody calculator is insisting that a surface with a temperature of -36C has a radiant emittance of 179W/m2.
http://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php
This is beyond dispute. The atmosphere also radiates downward towards the surface. The difference between upwelling and downwelling is the net radiation which determines the rate of radiative cooling. CO2 absorbs upwelling radiation and redirects a portion of it downward which reduces the net radiation and hence the rate of radiative cooling.
This is how the greenhouse effect works.
R.Gates doesn’t know how the greenhouse effect actually works. Isn’t that just precious?
You don’t seem to understand
So I take it you agree with what I said lol
Ask Easterbrook for a reference for that 99% figure. He won’t be able to provide one as he’s just blowing air.
Here’s an actual science reference though that water vapor contributes just 50% of the greenhouse effect:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/
“Roy Spencer has given the Jan 2014 temperature; 0.29 C. There is no sign that the cessation of global warming has ceased”
There’s no sign in UAH there’s been any cessation of global warming.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/mean:60
Up up up
Such a basic misunderstanding. Incredible.
Refer to basic heat budget diagram from Houghton et al., (1996: 58), which used data from Kiehl and Trenberth (1996).
http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter05/Images/Fig5-6.htm
Note average upwelling radiation is 390W/m2 and average downwelling is 324W/m2.
Now let’s go look at what the blackbody calculator has to say about the temperature of a surface with 390W/m2 radiant emittance. Plug in a value of 288K (the average surface temperature of the earth). Note the calculated radiant emittance is 390W/m2.
Now let’s plug in the average temperature of the Antarctic given at 237K. The calculated radiant emittance is 178.9W/m2.
Holy crap. Springer knows WTF he’s talking about. He knows where and why the numbers used by Houghton, Kiehl and Trenberth are what they are in the heat budget cartoon.
And Gates doesn’t have the first clue about it. Amazing. How long have you been at this Gates and you have not yet assimilated the above?
That’s nice but I didn’t mention sunspots as solar wind proxy. I mentioned sunspots as solar magnetic field strength proxy.
The sunspot cycle is produced by an oscillation between
toroidal and poloidal components of the magnetic field, similar to the oscillation between kinetic and potential energies in a simple harmonic oscillator ( Parker 1956)
The Poloidal component has doubled since 1858 hence the increase in the fast solar wind from coronal holes ( until recently)
The recent deep solar minimum has seen a interplanetary magnetic field decrease of 28% less then the previous 4 minima, a decrease of CR modulation in the antapax direction at around 60 au,
O/T, but some might like to explain realities to John Cook and the audience on this supposedly “academic” (Ha! Ha!) website.
“The truth is out there – So how do you debunk a myth?
https://theconversation.com/the-truth-is-out-there-so-how-do-you-debunk-a-myth-22641
… although the analogy of a greenhouse is erroneous it nonetheless must be recognized where it comes from–i.e., the easily observable, inarguable fact that clouds hold heat in at night.
lolwot, you write “There’s no sign in UAH there’s been any cessation of global warming.”
I refer to
UAH has been flat for over 9 years.
“He knows where and why the numbers used by Houghton, Kiehl and Trenberth are what they are in the heat budget cartoon.”
Something I’ve wondered about that cartoon, the average value can’t be that high can it?
Peter Lang
I’m afraid explaining realities to John Cook would be a waste of time – he already has his mind made up that the myth is correct.
Max
