'Stadium waves' could explain lull in global warming

[flacaltenn]

AGWCult members will believe absolutely anything

You and the PBear need to get a clue.. Judith Curry and her entourage are probably the BEST QUALIFIED skeptical climate scientists out there. Seems like some of the same skeptics who jumped on Dr. Spencer out of scientific ignorance have an agenda to REJECT EVERYTHING. Including the content of Physics Books and the advanced tools of Systems Analysis..

If you've got a case to make WITHOUT science --- count me out....

 

[Abraham3]

You didn't start this thread. When I stated that I didn't understand it, I was referring to the lead posts's quote quoted here:

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.

If this had been explained more thoroughly, I'm sure there is a comprehensible theory in there somewhere. But the attempted analogy between the world's oceanic and atmospheric systems and the crowd in a stadium eludes me. If they simply mean that some effect moves as a wave across the environment, they might have chosen an analogy that doesn't rely on sentient, active agents for its propagation.

Within the limits of your ability to explain your thoughts, which seems to me is not as good as you believe it to be (that is, I have trouble following you because of the manner in which you attempt to explain things rather than the actual topic being explained), I have not had a great deal of trouble following your posts. That doesn't mean I agree with them. Your contention that warming is being caused by TSI increases since the 1700s by an extraordinarily complicated relationship that you have yet to describe or justify, does not have me convinced.

You and I have different educations and I will admit that you seem to have more of it than do I. My complaint is that we hear a great deal more about yours than is really warranted by the conversations in which you bring it up. The same applies to your repeated expressions of disdain for the education of professional researchers, with PhDs, whom you do not know from Adam. Almost all of these comments appear to be expressions of your ego and perhaps some insecurity or hostility about your personal situation as they have no bearing whatsoever on the topics under discussion. Beyond that, they are tiresome and given that they offend the sensibilities of your audience, are certainly not helping you convince anyone that you've got the better idea.

I have a great deal more respect for Judith Curry than I do for Roy Spencer. I don't agree with either one of them on most points, but I, personally, have a great deal of difficulty trusting the scientific abilities of anyone who can believe the Earth was created by magic less than 10,000 years ago.

I've got an alternate explanation.... When I STAY ON TOPIC and tell you exactly WHY I believe that the climate temperature curve does not have to MATCH the input driving force shape --- I get assailed.

For this your view gets assailed. Comments about the frequency of your detours into educational ad hominem-ism are a separate discussion.

I don't believe anyone has rejected your contention that the response does not HAVE to match the forcing. PMZ and IfItzMe have, instead, both presented excellent cases contending that CO2 warming provides a forcing with orders of magnitude better correlation. Given the two choices, picking TSI simply because a forcing-response match is not MANDATORY is not particularly convincing. As I have noted here and elsewhere, if you'd like to achieve some traction with your idea, you need to describe the actual relationship you believe exists and provide some justification for its very existence. I might have missed it, but I have yet to see such a post from you.

EVEN WHEN a brand new paper comes out in a timely fashion discussing many of the same things that I asserted..

Is that brilliance? Is it luck? Does it really matter??

Here's what matters and explains your hostility towards my independence in thought..

If Wyatt and Curry's paper supports your view, good for you. Your discussion of the matter, though, here and elsewhere, just has more ego than I can tolerate. If you can't see the excessive self-esteem you've expressed above... well, that's the problem, isn't it.

 

[flacaltenn]

It IS a bad choice of renaming science concepts for general public consumption. Just like the decision to coin the phrase "back-radiation" that doesn't appear in classical physics books.

The tendency to do these things is generally found in sectors of science that are cut-off and isolated from mainstream scientific discipline..

"Stadium waves" never needed to be invented. One could easily describe these processes as thermal transfers in the presence of thermal inertia and multiple thermal couplings. Thermal inertia implies delays in heat distribution, and multiple thermal coupling imply transfer of heat across dissimiliar materials and boundaries.

But THIS part of science is playing to Kardashian audience and MUST go public and do battle. Hence, "stadium waves"..

THis concept is no different than quantizing the delays and transfer functions that your home heating system experiences when it clicks on to provide a burst of energy to correct the energy outflow in your house.

The fan comes on blowing cold air before the furnace ignites (safety) cooling the heat exchanger and the ductwork. The heat must overcome the thermal gradients in the exchanger and ducting before warmer air arrives in the ducting, then in vents, then mixing in room air circulation and finally at the thermostat which is always measuring at the main air RETURN to prevent hysterisis, dampening or oscillation in the control side of the process.

In fact --- your home HVAC is a great example of how a "climate system" isn't expected to have it's output temp match the thermal source of power.. The furnace never changes temperature (like in the current maximum TSI situation) it simply "time integrates" the power level to produce the right amount of ENERGY (not power) to overcome the heat loss rate..

 

[Moonglow]

Any kid in the 4th grade 30 or 40 years ago would have would have told modern scientists that the Sun was the source of all energy but the geniuses who run the global extortion scheme forgot.

The Sun is not the only source of energy.

 

[mamooth]

The furnace never changes temperature (like in the current maximum TSI situation) it simply "time integrates" the power level to produce the right amount of ENERGY (not power) to overcome the heat loss rate.

That's unlike your proposed system, where the solar heat simply vanishes for decades before popping up again. We can always find the furnace's heat, but your magic delayed solar heat somehow hides somewhere beyond the reach of all our instruments.

 

[flacaltenn]

The furnace never changes temperature (like in the current maximum TSI situation) it simply "time integrates" the power level to produce the right amount of ENERGY (not power) to overcome the heat loss rate.

That's unlike your proposed system, where the solar heat simply vanishes for decades before popping up again. We can always find the furnace's heat, but your magic delayed solar heat somehow hides somewhere beyond the reach of all our instruments.

Perhaps you're wasting time in this forum.. Too much emotion and next to no absorption.

I've told you 10 times -- 11 yr solar cycles are NOT TSI..
The former is NOT a power measurement, is UNIT-LESS, and counts spots. The LATTER is a full baseline retained measurement of solar flux in W/m2 measured over the entire spectrum of emissions.

The TSI has not "vanished for decades".. It rose to a 300 relative maximum and has stayed approximately there for 40 yrs.. Just like the pulse of energy your HVAC system uses to build temperature in your home..

Fully measured and accounted for. And only simpletons believe that a ball as complex as the earth reaches NEW thermal equilibriums in days or years WITHOUT "magic delays"..

 

[mamooth]

I've told you 10 times -- 11 yr solar cycles are NOT TSI

I've never understood why you keep bringing up 11 year solar cycles, since I've never mentioned them. You're just strangely obsessed with them.

The former is NOT a power measurement, is UNIT-LESS, and counts spots. The LATTER is a full baseline retained measurement of solar flux in W/m2 measured over the entire spectrum of emissions.

That's more rambling that has nothing to do with the point at hand. Which is that your theory relies on magical hidden heat.

The TSI has not "vanished for decades".. It rose to a 300 relative maximum and has stayed approximately there for 40 yrs.. Just like the pulse of energy your HVAC system uses to build temperature in your home..

Except it never happened like that in the past.

Temps were flat or decreasing a bit from 1940-1970. TSI is now below those 1970 levels, but temps keep shooting up.

Why weren't temps anywhere increasing 1940-1970, given TSI was about the same? Where was all the extra heat hiding for 30 years? In the furnace example, we could measure the ducts or furnace metal as the storehouse for the heat. So on the earth, where was the heat being stored before it manifested as air temps? Oceans? So why weren't ocean temps rising?

 

[flacaltenn]

I've told you 10 times -- 11 yr solar cycles are NOT TSI

I've never understood why you keep bringing up 11 year solar cycles, since I've never mentioned them. You're just strangely obsessed with them.

The former is NOT a power measurement, is UNIT-LESS, and counts spots. The LATTER is a full baseline retained measurement of solar flux in W/m2 measured over the entire spectrum of emissions.

That's more rambling that has nothing to do with the point at hand. Which is that your theory relies on magical hidden heat.

The TSI has not "vanished for decades".. It rose to a 300 relative maximum and has stayed approximately there for 40 yrs.. Just like the pulse of energy your HVAC system uses to build temperature in your home..

Except it never happened like that in the past.

Temps were flat or decreasing a bit from 1940-1970. TSI is now below those 1970 levels, but temps keep shooting up.

Why weren't temps anywhere increasing 1940-1970, given TSI was about the same? Where was all the extra heat hiding for 30 years? In the furnace example, we could measure the ducts or furnace metal as the storehouse for the heat. So on the earth, where was the heat being stored before it manifested as air temps? Oceans? So why weren't ocean temps rising?

For the 12th time... Here's the chart... With a pop quiz..

1) Does that look like the TSI "vanished for decades" ?????????????
2) Is the decline from the 70s appreciable or is TSI maintaining a relative 300 yr high????

The only way you could logically assert that "it vanished" would be to do the skepticalscience evasive manuever of picturing 11 yr sunspot cycles. If that doesn't explain your error --- than your real excuse must be truely stupid..

Just like an HVAC climate system.. If there is an energy imbalance, the amount of energy from even a FIXED source of forcing power will integrate and cause temps to climb. (in the absence of sufficient NEGATIVE feedbacks)

When you look at the big picture of the climate ending in 4 oscillating Ice Ages, one RATIONAL conclusion would be that the system has reached a set point and is displaying underdamped "hunting" around a climate optimum. Just like any closed loop system where the feedback mechanisms cause the time series to vary slightly plus or minus about the balance point. The last 1% of a cruise control setting for instance.

The action of a TSI increase is SUFFICIENT to produce that energy imbalance. EVEN IF it doesn't track the temperature completely or without delays...