Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
'Stadium waves' could explain lull in global warming | e! Science NewsOne 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 climate 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.
'Stadium waves' could explain lull in global warming
'Stadium waves' could explain lull in global warming | e! Science NewsOne 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 climate 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.
'Stadium waves' could explain lull in global warming
'Stadium waves' could explain lull in global warming | e! Science NewsOne 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 climate 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.
Rutgers Stadium Wave - YouTube
Stadium waves cause Global Warming?
Where does the ocean eating Global Warming come into play?
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.
Looks like the cycle-seeking fallacy. That is, make the unwarranted assume that a cycle must be present, and then massage the data until you find it.
On the bright side, at least Curry made a falsifiable prediction, so she'll be proven wrong rather quickly.
Looks like the cycle-seeking fallacy. That is, make the unwarranted assume that a cycle must be present, and then massage the data until you find it.
On the bright side, at least Curry made a falsifiable prediction, so she'll be proven wrong rather quickly.
'Stadium waves' could explain lull in global warming
'Stadium waves' could explain lull in global warming | e! Science NewsOne 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 climate 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.
You can`t really expect those who did study and fully understand standing and traveling waves not to laugh off what the likes of "Stadium wavers" and "Yes Virginias" publish as "science".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.
'Stadium waves' could explain lull in global warming
'Stadium waves' could explain lull in global warming | e! Science NewsOne 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 climate 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.
First there was Spencer`s "Yes Virginia, thought experiment" and now we`ve got "Stadium waves" for dummies in an attempt to "explain" the fact that temperatures did not rise for 15 years and counting, which has been staunchly denied ...how much more can physics be dumbed down ?
This climatology "new speak" term "Stadium wave" is indicative of the level of "science" climatology really is at, as indicative as the Pap test which uses the respondent`s choice what first comes to mind.
It`s safe to say that anyone who blabbers about "stadium waves" and an animated crowd in a football stadium spent most of his or her time in front of a TV watching ESPN and not in a physics lecture auditorium.
You can`t really expect those who did study and fully understand standing and traveling waves not to laugh off what the likes of "Stadium wavers" and "Yes Virginias" publish as "science".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.
It astounds me how many of the Earth's physical processes fall under your personal purview. I might have thought given the apparently universal application of your schooling and experience towards climate processes, that you would have gone into the field. There's certainly work to be had. Perhaps you could straighten them out.
It astounds me how many of the Earth's physical processes fall under your personal purview. I might have thought given the apparently universal application of your schooling and experience towards climate processes, that you would have gone into the field. There's certainly work to be had. Perhaps you could straighten them out.
So this is your idea of a better tone? Leading by example? Spare me...
I recall that I had astronomers in my Fields and Waves courses. There were mechanical and chemical dudes in my thermo classes. There were premed guys in my statistics courses and I was the only EE in a 100 student premed Organic Chem series. In fact, 1st day of class the prof calls me out in front of everybody and asks how the hell I ended up on his roster and what Med Schools I was interested in. In grad work -- we did consults to multiple companies in very different fields.
Some of the best hires I ever made in Silicon Valley were from REMOTE applications areas that had NO apparent connection to the current work description.. It's not as rare as you make it sound. And there are no access barriers, just like there were none for some of the earliest greatest scientists in the planet's history.. Know any brilliant scientists that crossed fields?? Find out how many VASTLY different fields the name Kirchoff show up.. Go ahead -- call him a show-off..
Not about me.. It's about the fact that you want intelligient discussion. YOU goad folks to stay on topic while offering great one-liners like "AGW is real".. And SOMEHOW you got the ideas that the TOOLS of science can't be discussed across different disciplines. That's all I've been doing for a couple is discussing how various kinds of Systems Theory apply to climate modeling.. That by knowing A LITTLE about features of the climate system, you can deduce a lot about of the behaviour of the system and determine if "forcing functions" need to look and curve fit exactly to the output data..
AND lo and behold --- this paper shows up.. FILLED with references to the stuff I was getting ridiculed about.. Because ONE GROUP of GOOD climate scientists at Georgia Tech finally got a BROAD BACKGROUND team together and started to discover the tenets and tools of analyzing complex systems instead of focusing on the ONE VARIABLE that has you all jazzed..
I've looked at several different preps for a PHD in Climate Science.. It's really not that impressive. And if you take the required courses and disciplines literally, in a lot of cases, the system and math toolbox is only half-full shall we say.. You approach it from the Physics side --- the situation improves greatly.
But you guys got your Geography Profs and a random grad student getting front page banner news for scaring the public with TEMPERATURES GOING OFF THE CHARTS in 2047. CLAIMING to be driving climate models and divining the exact YEAR when Cleveland burns up... And when Rio starts to melt.. (different years ==== true story) THAT is real science eh? Somehow, crossing the line from Geography to Climate Modeling doesn't make a diff.
Your choice.. Not mine.. If I want to comment on the tools available to climate modeling and nobody is interested --- or discuss how much I love this new paper by Curry --- we can always start another thread on Cucinelli until he fades into political obscurity..
Or you can dog me some more about my manners..
It astounds me how many of the Earth's physical processes fall under your personal purview. I might have thought given the apparently universal application of your schooling and experience towards climate processes, that you would have gone into the field. There's certainly work to be had. Perhaps you could straighten them out.
So this is your idea of a better tone? Leading by example? Spare me...
I recall that I had astronomers in my Fields and Waves courses. There were mechanical and chemical dudes in my thermo classes. There were premed guys in my statistics courses and I was the only EE in a 100 student premed Organic Chem series. In fact, 1st day of class the prof calls me out in front of everybody and asks how the hell I ended up on his roster and what Med Schools I was interested in. In grad work -- we did consults to multiple companies in very different fields.
Some of the best hires I ever made in Silicon Valley were from REMOTE applications areas that had NO apparent connection to the current work description.. It's not as rare as you make it sound. And there are no access barriers, just like there were none for some of the earliest greatest scientists in the planet's history.. Know any brilliant scientists that crossed fields?? Find out how many VASTLY different fields the name Kirchoff show up.. Go ahead -- call him a show-off..
Not about me.. It's about the fact that you want intelligient discussion. YOU goad folks to stay on topic while offering great one-liners like "AGW is real".. And SOMEHOW you got the ideas that the TOOLS of science can't be discussed across different disciplines. That's all I've been doing for a couple is discussing how various kinds of Systems Theory apply to climate modeling.. That by knowing A LITTLE about features of the climate system, you can deduce a lot about of the behaviour of the system and determine if "forcing functions" need to look and curve fit exactly to the output data..
AND lo and behold --- this paper shows up.. FILLED with references to the stuff I was getting ridiculed about.. Because ONE GROUP of GOOD climate scientists at Georgia Tech finally got a BROAD BACKGROUND team together and started to discover the tenets and tools of analyzing complex systems instead of focusing on the ONE VARIABLE that has you all jazzed..
I've looked at several different preps for a PHD in Climate Science.. It's really not that impressive. And if you take the required courses and disciplines literally, in a lot of cases, the system and math toolbox is only half-full shall we say.. You approach it from the Physics side --- the situation improves greatly.
But you guys got your Geography Profs and a random grad student getting front page banner news for scaring the public with TEMPERATURES GOING OFF THE CHARTS in 2047. CLAIMING to be driving climate models and divining the exact YEAR when Cleveland burns up... And when Rio starts to melt.. (different years ==== true story) THAT is real science eh? Somehow, crossing the line from Geography to Climate Modeling doesn't make a diff.
Your choice.. Not mine.. If I want to comment on the tools available to climate modeling and nobody is interested --- or discuss how much I love this new paper by Curry --- we can always start another thread on Cucinelli until he fades into political obscurity..
Or you can dog me some more about my manners..
Yes, it was a better tone. No profanity. No comments about your intelligence or your sexual predilections or your political persuasion. It was, however, a gig about your ego. The text above wasn't exactly a fix now, was it.
Where I see you wasting everyone's time is when you tell us that climate scientists are idiots and that you are brilliant. Why don't you just present your case? If you're brilliant and they're idiots, it'll just fall out of the wash.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/7984126-post37.html
Note that I did not start the stadium wave thread. I don't even understand it.
