How would the communications problem change if astrology were thought to be the cause of natural variability?
It would be a wicked problem, there would be many contributing cycles correlated at various levels of significance with temperature, and thousands of research grants could find more.
Both merely look scientific, and both are not science.
Thanks to the “hiatus”, we can actually increase our confident on the impact of mankind on warming !…
An article on what is actually the real argument of the IPCC: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/21/from-90-to-95-confidence-level-how-ipcc-claims-can-be-at-the-same-time-consistent-and-absurd/
”
They are suggesting that geomagnetics cause multi-decadal temperature fluctuation – not that anthropogenic warming causes geomagnetic variability.I’d suggest it is an own goal – but the evidence suggests random potshots rather than any rational goal oriented activity.
”
Aussie,
Thanks for another OWN GOAL.
The LOD effect is indeed subtle and correlates to approximately +/- 0.1C in temperature amplitude swings. And yes, they do think it is due to some natural variability happening somewhere in the earth’s core.
The point is, do we think that this value will grow beyond this effective +/- 0.1 C modulation?
And does anyone think that this exhibits a long-term trend, which would indicate a more permanent gain or loss in angular momentum?
They already can correlate shorter-term variations in LOD very accurately to ENSO variations, so it will just be a matter of time before someone will figure out the cause and effect.
Cappy,
Thanks for owning up to an OWN GOAL.
The regimes transitioned in 1911, 1944, 1976 and 1998.
But hell – go with random years if you like. It would be par for the course.
So you are confirming the fact that these are garbage graphs?
If the sample space is that limited such that you have gaps, no wonder that the noise dominates the time series profile.
Yet you also say that you are using greater than a million records. That is quite a disconnect.
What exactly are you trying to show except to sow FUD?
The International Council for Science (ICSU) has a conference at present (chaired by Gluckman) of science advisers, as an intro into the open science conference.
The uncertainty monster is taken to be a given in science.
Chris Colose: This is where I generally recommend consulting actual experts in the subject, but instead she refuses to listen to anybody who knows what they are talking about because it might be “groupthink” or “ideology.” Because JC is high-profile in these discussions, her statements get a lot of attention, and so unfortunately demand time from other people when she gets it wrong.
this is the place where links and citations would be helpful. I frequently find that references to scholarship elsewhere frequently do not support claims made about them. I buy a bunch of books and download a few dozen papers each year. I read many links. Whatever you have, I’ll read. I usually find that what are claimed to be “debunki9ng” and such are based, like Gavin Schmidt’s remarks on Judith Curry’s post, alternative questionable assumptions. I find that there are a lot of things that are not known very precisely or completely. Most commonly I find the assumption that the radiative balance and equilibrium calculations (ignoring non-radiative transfer) are directly relevant to the dynamic climate, to at least the first significant figure and at a short time frame.
Judith says “My take is that external forcing explains general variations on very long time scales, and equilibrium differences in planetary climates of relevance to comparative planetology.”
It is not the time scale that matters, but the change in forcing, however quickly that occurs. The deltaF now is ten times the size of a sunspot cycle’s deltaF and also several times larger than the Maunder Minimum negative change (both with measurable temperature effects). Expected deltaF’s of 5+ W/m2 compare with those that distinguish widely varying paleoclimate periods, such as those with or without polar ice caps and their consequences for sea level. 5 W/m2 is achievable at 700 ppm. It is only the forcing change that matters on long time scales. Natural internal variability can’t do much against that, and is a red herring in the big picture.
Don’t have much time – have to go get my cast changed. Yellow this time.
Yes – centennial to millennial change is anticipated in line with the cosmogenic isotope record. This it is suggested is a good proxy for solar UV – which modulates both ENSO and the PDO from the top down. This in turn results in the biggest changes in LOD and wobble.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/3/034008
If he ever understood where the goals were it would be a miracle.
Finding warmth in all the wrong places.
The surface record has poor coverage some periods in some areas. I had a copy of hadcrut 3 I believe, and it was made from the same stations. This is NCDC’S data set. It also has 122 million station records. People should get a look at what the temperature series are made from.
I generate station record counts for each report, which is used to make these graphs.
Possibly the best cartoon yet. Let’s not let facts and real world observations get in the way of motivated reasoning.
Bill, ;-)
Please leave Australia out of this argument. Dr Jennifer Marohassy has recently exposed the fraud by Australia’s Bureau of Metrology in falsifying climate data over many years. Does that seem familiar?
Here is the link to Jennifers site:
It was Judith who said “Pick one”, and Gavin who said this was not a good start, so I think he was agreeing with your reaction.
Thanks, good post.
