What REALLY terrifies climate scientists: "Feedback"

[flacaltenn]

Notice it is not straight line, but rather curves upward. For those who did not take calculus, this means the increase of CO2 is accelerating.

In quadratic form --- the 2nd order term (acceleration) is pretty insignificant.

I give you an F in calculus. In fact, this statement by you is a reveal that you clearly have zero idea what you are talking about. You are a charlatan, which is a safe bet when it comes to any and all deniers.

Keep reading moron. And TRY to get your foot out of your mouth. A couple posts down, OldyRocks posts a "fact sheet" from NASA PR team on "Space Math" (lol) that completely validates my assertion.

Cut it out -- you're getting annoying.. I still want the discussion..

On the contrary, it invalidated your math. What was predicted for 10 years, occurred in 7. That is a huge difference in a mathematical curve. If the curve were linear, you could say that what was predicted for 2050 would have occurred about 2036. But it is not linear, so it will have occurred much sooner than that.

Not true.. In the Problem Number I quoted -- as I said -- the acceleration is NEGLIGIBLE. Especially over a mere 10 year period. Something else is wrong with this conclusions from this "other" problem.

 

[Old Rocks]

Boston is sinking? I knew about Venice.

I've addressed that. I have heard not a peep about Boston Harbor struggling with rising sea levels, or the Netherlands, or New Orleans, or any other place. I can only believe what I have seen with my own eyes at this point, and the rock islands in the Philippines that we climbed around on have areas worn out by thousands of years of waves crashing in on them and they have shown no sign of rising water.

Sorry, but when I hear people talk about rising oceans I don't believe them because I have seen evidence they are wrong.

LOL So we are to take the word of a poster that has continually proved what a dumb ass he is. So you are saying that your eyeball is more accurate than all the scientists at Scripps, or at Woods Hole.

Adapting to a Changing Ocean: Preparing for Sea-Level Rise | Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego

Sea Level Rise is No Joke – Woods Hole Research Center

 

[flacaltenn]

Hey Old Rocks So you can sleep tonight, I went back and worked Problem 3. I took out the sinusoid term by eyeballing the annual mean for 1982 to be 340.8 from the Excel raw data. The annual peak is in April at Mauna Loa. And it's amplitude is about 3.18ppm over the annual mean. The READING of 410ppm was taken in May of this year 2017. So you need to subtract about 3ppm from that to reflect the 2017 mean.

Which means there's ROOM LEFT for 410ppm YEARLY AVERAGE by 2020. It could be off by as much as a year. BUT -- that projection in the problem was NOT just 10 years out. It was from 1982 to 2020 -- using a 38 year span. So being off by a year -- means the fit is PRETTY GOOD and hasn't changed all that much over NEARLY 40 years..

Their sinusoidal term is phase fit, but might be off by +/- 1 month.

 

[flacaltenn]

Or the geniuses that crafted this HSchool math page of "Space Math" didn't sync up the PHASE of the sinewave included in the fit to model the annual variation to actual calendar seasons..

If you place many of the cycles on a graph, the times the earth has major changes is generally when these cycles all go high or low at the same time..

WE know so little its funny as hell to watch these people make predictions and then look confused when their predictions fail. Is it due to arrogance or ignorance?

There's a section of math called Fourier Analysis. It's vital to my specialty of image/signal processing. The gist is that any waveform or data series can be either decomposed (or synthesized) by a series of cyclical sinewaves (or various other repeating "basis functions") with specific amplitude/phase/frequency. You can take a ramp -- like the temperature forcing function we've all stared out -- and find a combo of periodic sine -- like functions that will be EXACTLY that ramp when added together.

So it's not a matter of "going all high or low at the same time". Rather it's the probability that enough cyclical "natural events" will align in the right amplitude/phase/frequency to create a "a linear ramp". Or a "ragged" linear ramp -- or a "step function".. Or any OTHER shape.

So with enough AMOs, PDOs, solar max/min, planetary alignment, arctic oscillations, ice age causing orbital cyclics, you can expect a lot of different "forcing function" shapes to appear over time. Ponder that over your next martini or doobie.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Or the geniuses that crafted this HSchool math page of "Space Math" didn't sync up the PHASE of the sinewave included in the fit to model the annual variation to actual calendar seasons..

If you place many of the cycles on a graph, the times the earth has major changes is generally when these cycles all go high or low at the same time..

WE know so little its funny as hell to watch these people make predictions and then look confused when their predictions fail. Is it due to arrogance or ignorance?

There's a section of math called Fourier Analysis. It's vital to my specialty of image/signal processing. The gist is that any waveform or data series can be either decomposed (or synthesized) by a series of cyclical sinewaves (or various other repeating "basis functions") with specific amplitude/phase/frequency. You can take a ramp -- like the temperature forcing function we've all stared out -- and find a combo of periodic sine -- like functions that will be EXACTLY that ramp when added together.

So it's not a matter of "going all high or low at the same time". Rather it's the probability that enough cyclical "natural events" will align in the right amplitude/phase/frequency to create a "a linear ramp". Or a "ragged" linear ramp -- or a "step function".. Or any OTHER shape.

So with enough AMOs, PDOs, solar max/min, planetary alignment, arctic oscillations, ice age causing orbital cyclics, you can expect a lot of different "forcing function" shapes to appear over time. Ponder that over your next martini or doobie.

I might over a beer.... But you stated it much better than I ....the "positive ramp" is an illusion of statistics and is short lived when the cycles decouple..

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Notice it is not straight line, but rather curves upward. For those who did not take calculus, this means the increase of CO2 is accelerating.

In quadratic form --- the 2nd order term (acceleration) is pretty insignificant.

I give you an F in calculus. In fact, this statement by you is a reveal that you clearly have zero idea what you are talking about. You are a charlatan, which is a safe bet when it comes to any and all deniers.

Keep reading moron. And TRY to get your foot out of your mouth. A couple posts down, OldyRocks posts a "fact sheet" from NASA PR team on "Space Math" (lol) that completely validates my assertion.

Cut it out -- you're getting annoying.. I still want the discussion..

Riiight....so the work of the global scientific community, who disgarees with you completely, all "verifies your assertions". You are an absurd person, living a fantasy. That is why you are not taken seriously and are relegated to shouting into void the in the only places that tolerate you: anonymous message boards.

 

[Crick]

Precisely where you find yourself

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Or the geniuses that crafted this HSchool math page of "Space Math" didn't sync up the PHASE of the sinewave included in the fit to model the annual variation to actual calendar seasons..

If you place many of the cycles on a graph, the times the earth has major changes is generally when these cycles all go high or low at the same time..

WE know so little its funny as hell to watch these people make predictions and then look confused when their predictions fail. Is it due to arrogance or ignorance?

There's a section of math called Fourier Analysis. It's vital to my specialty of image/signal processing. The gist is that any waveform or data series can be either decomposed (or synthesized) by a series of cyclical sinewaves (or various other repeating "basis functions") with specific amplitude/phase/frequency. You can take a ramp -- like the temperature forcing function we've all stared out -- and find a combo of periodic sine -- like functions that will be EXACTLY that ramp when added together.

So it's not a matter of "going all high or low at the same time". Rather it's the probability that enough cyclical "natural events" will align in the right amplitude/phase/frequency to create a "a linear ramp". Or a "ragged" linear ramp -- or a "step function".. Or any OTHER shape.

So with enough AMOs, PDOs, solar max/min, planetary alignment, arctic oscillations, ice age causing orbital cyclics, you can expect a lot of different "forcing function" shapes to appear over time. Ponder that over your next martini or doobie.

I might over a beer.... But you stated it much better than I ....the "positive ramp" is an illusion of statistics and is short lived when the cycles decouple..

Riiiiight...and all of these gullible, so-called "scientists" and "experts" just haven't managed

Precisely where you find yourself

But not where we find the scientists who endorse the consensus. We find them publishing all the science and leading global scientific societies. Suh-wing and a miss.

 

[Crick]

I think it would be a more accurate and objective observation to say that the vast majority of those who publish and those who lead scientific societies agree with the findings of the IPCC. They do so because they know the difference between good science and pseudo scientific bullshit.

 

[flacaltenn]

Notice it is not straight line, but rather curves upward. For those who did not take calculus, this means the increase of CO2 is accelerating.

In quadratic form --- the 2nd order term (acceleration) is pretty insignificant.

I give you an F in calculus. In fact, this statement by you is a reveal that you clearly have zero idea what you are talking about. You are a charlatan, which is a safe bet when it comes to any and all deniers.

Keep reading moron. And TRY to get your foot out of your mouth. A couple posts down, OldyRocks posts a "fact sheet" from NASA PR team on "Space Math" (lol) that completely validates my assertion.

Cut it out -- you're getting annoying.. I still want the discussion..

Riiight....so the work of the global scientific community, who disgarees with you completely, all "verifies your assertions". You are an absurd person, living a fantasy. That is why you are not taken seriously and are relegated to shouting into void the in the only places that tolerate you: anonymous message boards.

This is all too personal for me to believe you actually have the insight into the GW science and claims that you THINK you have, Or I HOPED you'd have. It's very disappointing to me..

So -- Let's recap how I STAYED on YOUR topic and had a fair discussion. You proposed that scientists were "terrified of feedbacks" and all the other "unsettled" assertions that were tossed out there in 80s. I ended this convo by introducing you to the recent history of "climate sensitivity estimates" and how they've been CONSTANTLY revised downwards since those early FAILED guesses at the relationship between CO2 and surface temp. If the Climate Scientists have been working tirelessly to DEMAGNIFY those numbers which REPRESENT all the accelerations and feedbacks that YOU were made frightened of by propaganda and irresponsible fearnongering of the GW elite ----- How can they be FRIGHTENED anymore?

Kinda hope you can relax and unclenched a bit now that I've helped you out here. You'll get hemorroids looking for brawls on science issues as full of fear as you are. You're welcome. You can abuse me all you want -- it doesn't work. You know nothing about me.

Welcome to USMB.

 

[flacaltenn]

Or the geniuses that crafted this HSchool math page of "Space Math" didn't sync up the PHASE of the sinewave included in the fit to model the annual variation to actual calendar seasons..

If you place many of the cycles on a graph, the times the earth has major changes is generally when these cycles all go high or low at the same time..

WE know so little its funny as hell to watch these people make predictions and then look confused when their predictions fail. Is it due to arrogance or ignorance?

There's a section of math called Fourier Analysis. It's vital to my specialty of image/signal processing. The gist is that any waveform or data series can be either decomposed (or synthesized) by a series of cyclical sinewaves (or various other repeating "basis functions") with specific amplitude/phase/frequency. You can take a ramp -- like the temperature forcing function we've all stared out -- and find a combo of periodic sine -- like functions that will be EXACTLY that ramp when added together.

So it's not a matter of "going all high or low at the same time". Rather it's the probability that enough cyclical "natural events" will align in the right amplitude/phase/frequency to create a "a linear ramp". Or a "ragged" linear ramp -- or a "step function".. Or any OTHER shape.

So with enough AMOs, PDOs, solar max/min, planetary alignment, arctic oscillations, ice age causing orbital cyclics, you can expect a lot of different "forcing function" shapes to appear over time. Ponder that over your next martini or doobie.

I might over a beer.... But you stated it much better than I ....the "positive ramp" is an illusion of statistics and is short lived when the cycles decouple..

Riiiiight...and all of these gullible, so-called "scientists" and "experts" just haven't managed

Precisely where you find yourself

But not where we find the scientists who endorse the consensus. We find them publishing all the science and leading global scientific societies. Suh-wing and a miss.

Consensus on WHAT? To have a consensus you need ONE concise question. Have ALL the questions been answered? Obviously not from the constantly revised downward models and projections..

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Notice it is not straight line, but rather curves upward. For those who did not take calculus, this means the increase of CO2 is accelerating.

In quadratic form --- the 2nd order term (acceleration) is pretty insignificant.

I give you an F in calculus. In fact, this statement by you is a reveal that you clearly have zero idea what you are talking about. You are a charlatan, which is a safe bet when it comes to any and all deniers.

Keep reading moron. And TRY to get your foot out of your mouth. A couple posts down, OldyRocks posts a "fact sheet" from NASA PR team on "Space Math" (lol) that completely validates my assertion.

Cut it out -- you're getting annoying.. I still want the discussion..

Riiight....so the work of the global scientific community, who disgarees with you completely, all "verifies your assertions". You are an absurd person, living a fantasy. That is why you are not taken seriously and are relegated to shouting into void the in the only places that tolerate you: anonymous message boards.

This is all too personal for me to believe you actually have the insight into the GW science and claims that you THINK you have, Or I HOPED you'd have. It's very disappointing to me..

So -- Let's recap how I STAYED on YOUR topic and had a fair discussion. You proposed that scientists were "terrified of feedbacks" and all the other "unsettled" assertions that were tossed out there in 80s. I ended this convo by introducing you to the recent history of "climate sensitivity estimates" and how they've been CONSTANTLY revised downwards since those early FAILED guesses at the relationship between CO2 and surface temp. If the Climate Scientists have been working tirelessly to DEMAGNIFY those numbers which REPRESENT all the accelerations and feedbacks that YOU were made frightened of by propaganda and irresponsible fearnongering of the GW elite ----- How can they be FRIGHTENED anymore?

Kinda hope you can relax and unclenched a bit now that I've helped you out here. You'll get hemorroids looking for brawls on science issues as full of fear as you are. You're welcome. You can abuse me all you want -- it doesn't work. You know nothing about me.

Welcome to USMB.

I'll not abuse you. But I will mercilessly ridicule the idea that you think you are challenging theories founded on mountains of mutually supportive evidence. You are not. It is not a challenge to a scientific theory to claim it is wrong. The challenge would be for you to churn out mountains of published, peer-reviewed science which undermines the theories. You are not doing this, and neither is anyone else. Rehashing questions already tackled by scienists is not "a debate", it's an exercise for a class. And you would not pass.

Considering your obvious deep interest in this topic , I am surprised you are not aware of the consensus. Considering your fluency in a scientific topic, I am also surprised that you think "all the questions" should have been answered, or will be answered. That is an absurd demand.

 

[mamooth]

There's a section of math called Fourier Analysis.

And competent scientists know when to apply it, and when not to.

In order for such analysis to make sense, the thing being analyzed actually has to be cyclic over the time frame you're looking at. In signal processing, when things tend to happen at high frequencies, that's normally a good assumption. In climate, where things happen on scales of decades, centuries or longer, that's generally a wrong assumption. Hence, it usually gives garbage results.

I can take any short-term climate signal and break it down to a summation of sine waves. And then if I use that to make a future prediction, the prediction will fail, because the process wasn't cyclic over such a short time frame. Deniers depend on that failed technique a lot, because if they pick the right short time frame, they can come up with any result they want. That's why it's referred to as "mathturbation".

 

[flacaltenn]

In quadratic form --- the 2nd order term (acceleration) is pretty insignificant.

I give you an F in calculus. In fact, this statement by you is a reveal that you clearly have zero idea what you are talking about. You are a charlatan, which is a safe bet when it comes to any and all deniers.

Keep reading moron. And TRY to get your foot out of your mouth. A couple posts down, OldyRocks posts a "fact sheet" from NASA PR team on "Space Math" (lol) that completely validates my assertion.

Cut it out -- you're getting annoying.. I still want the discussion..

Riiight....so the work of the global scientific community, who disgarees with you completely, all "verifies your assertions". You are an absurd person, living a fantasy. That is why you are not taken seriously and are relegated to shouting into void the in the only places that tolerate you: anonymous message boards.

This is all too personal for me to believe you actually have the insight into the GW science and claims that you THINK you have, Or I HOPED you'd have. It's very disappointing to me..

So -- Let's recap how I STAYED on YOUR topic and had a fair discussion. You proposed that scientists were "terrified of feedbacks" and all the other "unsettled" assertions that were tossed out there in 80s. I ended this convo by introducing you to the recent history of "climate sensitivity estimates" and how they've been CONSTANTLY revised downwards since those early FAILED guesses at the relationship between CO2 and surface temp. If the Climate Scientists have been working tirelessly to DEMAGNIFY those numbers which REPRESENT all the accelerations and feedbacks that YOU were made frightened of by propaganda and irresponsible fearnongering of the GW elite ----- How can they be FRIGHTENED anymore?

Kinda hope you can relax and unclenched a bit now that I've helped you out here. You'll get hemorroids looking for brawls on science issues as full of fear as you are. You're welcome. You can abuse me all you want -- it doesn't work. You know nothing about me.

Welcome to USMB.

I'll not abuse you. But I will mercilessly ridicule the idea that you think you are challenging theories founded on mountains of mutually supportive evidence. You are not. It is not a challenge to a scientific theory to claim it is wrong. The challenge would be for you to churn out mountains of published, peer-reviewed science which undermines the theories. You are not doing this, and neither is anyone else. Rehashing questions already tackled by scienists is not "a debate", it's an exercise for a class. And you would not pass.

Considering your obvious deep interest in this topic , I am surprised you are not aware of the consensus. Considering your fluency in a scientific topic, I am also surprised that you think "all the questions" should have been answered, or will be answered. That is an absurd demand.

Actually I didn't CHALLENGE anything. I just schooled you in how scientists are NOT terrified of feedbacks. I gave you the history of the history of the Climate Sensitivity estimates coming down since the early 2000s. SOMEWHERE --- there's a chart of the BIGGER OLDER DECLINE in these "feedback" effects that goes back to 1980s.. CLEARLY -- they were WAAAYYY overestimating and stoking fear in OTHERS. Not themselves.

What theory have I "challenged"? I'm trying to have an INTELLIGENT convo on YOUR chosen topic..

And giving you a SOURCED history of that debate within this "unsettled science"....

 

[flacaltenn]

There's a section of math called Fourier Analysis.

And competent scientists know when to apply it, and when not to.

In order for such analysis to make sense, the thing being analyzed actually has to be cyclic over the time frame you're looking at. In signal processing, when things tend to happen at high frequencies, that's normally a good assumption. In climate, where things happen on scales of decades, centuries or longer, that's generally a wrong assumption. Hence, it usually gives garbage results.

I can take any short-term climate signal and break it down to a summation of sine waves. And then if I use that to make a future prediction, the prediction will fail, because the process wasn't cyclic over such a short time frame. Deniers depend on that failed technique a lot, because if they pick the right short time frame, they can come up with any result they want. That's why it's referred to as "mathturbation".

My dear moron. The time scale involved is NOT a concern of the mathematics of Fourier synthesis or decomposition. It couldn't care less if it was NANOSeconds or EOns. Furthermore it has NO bias towards high or low frequencies.

The fact that the multitude of cyclic events that influence the climate have random and slightly varying frequencies and phases just makes the proposition even MORE interesting. Because over LONG periods of time -- you can "synthesize" a WIDE VARIETY of climate forcing shapes out of the concurrence of these "quasi-periodic" cycles.

 

[flacaltenn]

Well looky here. In the 1st paragraph of the Wiki on Climate Oscillations, Fourier analysis is mentioned as a measure of "periodicity" of each of the cyclical climate forcing events.

Climate oscillation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A climate oscillation or climate cycle is any recurring cyclical oscillation within global or regional climate, and is a type of climate pattern. These fluctuations in atmospheric temperature, sea surface temperature, precipitation or other parameters can be quasi-periodic, often occurring on inter-annual, multi-annual, decadal, multidecadal, century-wide, millennial or longer timescales. They are not perfectly periodic and a Fourier analysis of the data does not give a sharp spectrum.

A prominent example is the El Niño Southern Oscillation, involving sea surface temperatures along a stretch of the equatorial Central and East Pacific Ocean and the western coast of tropical South America, but which affects climate worldwide.


All this mystery math to you is used quite frequently in analyzing VERY OLD AND LONG climate records.

http://www-odp.tamu.edu/publications/143_SR/VOLUME/CHAPTERS/sr143_20.pdf

 

[mamooth]

So why don't you do a Fourier decomposition of the S&P stock index, and then use that to predict the future of the stock market?

When you answer why you don't do that, you'll have answered why it's also foolish to try it with climate.

Again, the problem is that you're ASSuming cyclic behavior exists that matches the periodicity of the very short-term measurements, even though such an ASSumption has no basis in fact. Finding a short-term oscillation means nothing, because they always exist, even in random noise. That's why ASSuming that they mean something is mathturbation, and why competent scientists don't do it.

 

[Kosh]

Climate scientists have confidence in a few things, for instance: the minimum amount of warming the climate will experience in the next 100 years, the primary driver of the observed, rapid warming, and the fact that the oceans are acidifying.

But, what terrifies scientists is not "the known", but rather, "the unknown". Scientists are worried that there exist certain thresholds, past which there will be runaway effects. This is related to the idea of "feedback loops". For instance, as more land and sea ice disappears, the climate will warm more quickly, causing even faster disappearance of land and sea ice... and so on.

Now that scientists have had more time to study our warming climate, they are starting to find these feedback loops in action. They are discovering, slowly but surely, that "albedo feedback" is causing an acceleration in the loss of arctic sea ice: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170906103622.htm

Now, scientists have always postulated this would be the case, but they have needed time to build the evidence that this is true. They now have it.

There are other feedback loops to consider, such as melting tundra and ocean acidification. While the major economies of the world dither to preserve short-term growth, the scientists of the world are banging pots and pans and sounding the sirens that, by the time they can convince even the most scientifically illiterate person of the dangers of inaction on climate change, it will be too late.

Many climate scientist are driven by the money they can make by believing in AGW religion.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Climate scientists have confidence in a few things, for instance: the minimum amount of warming the climate will experience in the next 100 years, the primary driver of the observed, rapid warming, and the fact that the oceans are acidifying.

But, what terrifies scientists is not "the known", but rather, "the unknown". Scientists are worried that there exist certain thresholds, past which there will be runaway effects. This is related to the idea of "feedback loops". For instance, as more land and sea ice disappears, the climate will warm more quickly, causing even faster disappearance of land and sea ice... and so on.

Now that scientists have had more time to study our warming climate, they are starting to find these feedback loops in action. They are discovering, slowly but surely, that "albedo feedback" is causing an acceleration in the loss of arctic sea ice: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170906103622.htm

Now, scientists have always postulated this would be the case, but they have needed time to build the evidence that this is true. They now have it.

There are other feedback loops to consider, such as melting tundra and ocean acidification. While the major economies of the world dither to preserve short-term growth, the scientists of the world are banging pots and pans and sounding the sirens that, by the time they can convince even the most scientifically illiterate person of the dangers of inaction on climate change, it will be too late.

Many climate scientist are driven by the money they can make by believing in AGW religion.

Which, of course, you just completely made up, and is bizarre and absurd on every level. man, the duuuuumb shit people will convince themselves of, when the facts do not uphold their superstitions...

 

[skookerasbil]

Climate scientists have confidence in a few things, for instance: the minimum amount of warming the climate will experience in the next 100 years, the primary driver of the observed, rapid warming, and the fact that the oceans are acidifying.

But, what terrifies scientists is not "the known", but rather, "the unknown". Scientists are worried that there exist certain thresholds, past which there will be runaway effects. This is related to the idea of "feedback loops". For instance, as more land and sea ice disappears, the climate will warm more quickly, causing even faster disappearance of land and sea ice... and so on.

Now that scientists have had more time to study our warming climate, they are starting to find these feedback loops in action. They are discovering, slowly but surely, that "albedo feedback" is causing an acceleration in the loss of arctic sea ice: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170906103622.htm

Now, scientists have always postulated this would be the case, but they have needed time to build the evidence that this is true. They now have it.

There are other feedback loops to consider, such as melting tundra and ocean acidification. While the major economies of the world dither to preserve short-term growth, the scientists of the world are banging pots and pans and sounding the sirens that, by the time they can convince even the most scientifically illiterate person of the dangers of inaction on climate change, it will be too late.

Climate science scientists have been worried and anxiety ridden for 25 years.........always in a state of angst. Understandable...........when you rely on computer models that are wrong all the time. duh


http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/the-models-are-wrong/