Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison


Comment on Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the 20th century by AK

0
0
Here's a thought:<blockquote>The residual variability in the GFDL runs is interannual; therefore, the lowest-frequency variability in the 20th century GFDL runs can indeed be represented as the sum of linear trend and the in-phase “stadium-wave” signal, the run-to-run differences in this variability coming about through slight differences in phasing of the stadium-wave index components. Finally, because both the trend and the stadium-wave component are essentially the same in all GFDL runs, to <b>display</b> this forced variability it is natural to use the ensemble mean, since it provides a clearer view of this variability by smoothing the sampling variations.</blockquote>I'm not sure if this approach would make sense, but could you take the various GFDL outputs, and distort their time-scales until they <b>were</b> in phase, with the observations and one another, then look at how they varied in detail? Or would that be too much like angels and pins?

Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison

0
0

Just 2 points Flynn? No and no. There – didn’t even have to read it.

Comment on Week in review by Michael

0
0

Judith thought he was deserving of a journal article in response.

Perhaps you’re right and Judith is wrong.

Comment on Week in review by Jim D

0
0

Thermal inertia. Land and ocean responding to the same external forcing, but the land can respond faster. It’s like the seasons where the oceans lag.

Comment on Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the 20th century by Rob Ellison

Comment on Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the 20th century by HR

0
0

I enjoyed reading the review process. You have to laugh (or cry) when you find your work rejected based on a review of what the paper doesn’t contain rather than whats actually in it.

Comment on Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the 20th century by Matthew R Marler

0
0

It was interesting to see that data and code were made available online; and it was interesting to see the interchanges between reviewers and authors. I hope that more authors do the latter.

Congratulations on publishing another good paper.


Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison

0
0

So why doesn’t it happen in the troposphere as a whole?

Comment on An unsettled climate by unsettled activism … unsettled science | pindanpost

Comment on Week in review by Mike Flynn

0
0

Michael,

If I wanted Judith’s response, I would have asked her, I guess.

I’m almost always right. I don’t speak for anybody else.

You obviously choose not to answer my question because you would end up looking foolish, like Michael Mann. I’m right again, I think.

Live well and prosper,

Mike Flynn.

Comment on Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the 20th century by Rob Ellison

0
0

‘There are two possible explanations for this documented inconsistency between climate model simulations and observations. The first one is that the propagation detected by Wyatt et al. [2012] is an artifact of their statistical analysis and the lagged phasing of
8 various climate indices is entirely due to sampling [Mann et al., 2014]. An alternative explanation is that a coherent propagating multidecadal climate signal in the Northern Hemisphere is real, in which case one needs to look further into the inability of climate models to simulate this signal.’

Don’t take offence Flynn the Dingbat – but there are two explanations. The models are right or wrong.

‘The abrupt changes of the past are not fully explained yet, and climate models typically underestimate the size, speed, and extent of those changes. Hence, future abrupt changes cannot be predicted with confidence, and climate surprises are to be expected.’ http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=1

‘A vigorous spectrum of interdecadal internal variability presents numerous challenges to our current understanding of the climate. First, it suggests that climate models in general still have difficulty reproducing the magnitude and spatiotemporal patterns of internal variability necessary to capture the observed character of the 20th century climate trajectory. Presumably, this is due primarily to deficiencies in ocean dynamics.’

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.full

Both the deficiencies of model ocean dynamics and the inevitability of a globally connected system seem quite obvious.

Comment on Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the 20th century by Don Monfort

0
0

OMG! Little joshie has gone with intended irony, this time. He’s learning, slowly.

Comment on Week in review by Jim D

0
0

Air motion mixes things up, I guess. The air only stays over the continents or ocean for a few days at a time.

Comment on Week in review by Mike Flynn

0
0

Rob Ellison,

Thanks. I assumed you didn’t read it, and just cut and pasted for some reason known only to yourself. Just because it appears on the Wide World of the Web, doesn’t mean it’s true. Otherwise, we would all probably believe in the fiction of the CO2 greenhouse effect, N Rays, orgonite and all the rest of the twaddle.

I suppose Nature requires gullibility – balance or something. Why must there be so much?

Keep up the good fight!

Live well and prosper,

Mike Flynn.


Comment on Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the 20th century by Steven Mosher

0
0

there is a world of difference between playing dumb and being stupid.
read the text.

“On top of a uniform linear trend, they identified an
oscillatory-looking wiggle with a common multidecadal time scale, but with different phases across the different indices of the climate network, thus manifesting a signal that propagates in the space of climate indices. The authors termed this propagating signal the
“stadium wave,”

“The secular multidecadal signal for the time series considered here is well represented by the sum of two leading RCs, which we will hereafter refer to as the stadium-wave signal.”

The RCs or reconstructed components come out of M-SSA ( a variant of EOFs)

easy peasy

Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison

0
0

So it is just the temps at 2m?

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/plot/crutem3vgl/from:1979

There is no particular lag noticeable in variability. Land is more variable than the land and ocean temps because of thermal inertia. The obvious factor is the land/ocean contrast that gets worse as the last decade proceeded and occurs only at the surface.

Now what could possibly affect sensible heat at the surface like that?

Comment on Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the 20th century by Mike Flynn

0
0

Rob Ellison,

I never take offense. I hope this doesn’t offend you.

Which models are you referring to? I believe there are a variety.

Which observations are you talking about, and in respect to which models? Are you seriously proposing that that you cannot think of more than two reasons why even one particular model may disagree with one particular set of observation purporting to be appropriate?

There are only two possibilities – either you are attempting to have a joke at my expense, or attempting to be gratuitously offensive. Is it not so?

Keep up the good fight,

Live well and prosper,

Mike Flynn.

Comment on Week in review by Jim D

Comment on Week in review by Jim D

0
0

It’s the heat retained in the upper soil that has the memory of the forcing. That changes the fluxes.

Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images