If that were true, then greenhouse gas emissions would be even scarier, as temperatures would be even higher if we were in another phase of a tidal cycle.
Comment Source:_If_ that were true, then greenhouse gas emissions would be even scarier, as temperatures would be even higher if we were in another phase of a tidal cycle.
Here is another fallacy: China contributes the most to greenhouse emissions, so we don't have to worry about our contribution. Well, suppose, hypothetically that China contributed 90%, and that the biosphere was at the verge of a tipping point. Then our contribution could be the last straw, and so whatever we can do to bring it down will take us that much further away from the tipping point.
Comment Source:Here is another fallacy: China contributes the most to greenhouse emissions, so we don't have to worry about our contribution. Well, suppose, hypothetically that China contributed 90%, and that the biosphere was at the verge of a tipping point. Then our contribution could be the last straw, and so whatever we can do to bring it down will take us that much further away from the tipping point.
"Paul, do you have a way of quantifying the contributions of tidal vs. greenhouse effects to global warming?"
The tidal contribution balances to zero based on theory.
There is an interesting direct correlation between the earth's length-of-day (LOD) changes and tidal cycles. This is precise on all the well-known tidal cycles.
tides -> LOD (tidal forcing causes slight torques on the earth's rotation, causing a varying rotation rate)
tides -> ENSO (tidal forcing causes slight torques on the earth's angular momentum, sloshing the ocean)
However there is also a long-term quasi-periodic cycle from 40-60 years that the LOD and the climate seem to share, from this recent paper based on long term NASA JPL and Paris Observatory research (started in the late 1970s).
The distinction between ENSO and PDO/AMO is that PDO and AMO show some longer term variations, which are not difficult to reproduce based on the beat frequencies of closely spaced tidal periods.
(compress the horizontal so it looks the same scale as above)
which implies that
unknown = tides
This is intriguing but there's not a lot of data from which to draw conclusions from.
Comment Source:David said:
<blockquote>"Paul, do you have a way of quantifying the contributions of tidal vs. greenhouse effects to global warming?"</blockquote>
The tidal contribution balances to zero based on theory.
There is an interesting direct correlation between the earth's length-of-day (LOD) changes and tidal cycles. This is precise on all the well-known tidal cycles.
tides -> LOD (tidal forcing causes slight torques on the earth's rotation, causing a varying rotation rate)
tides -> ENSO (tidal forcing causes slight torques on the earth's angular momentum, sloshing the ocean)
However there is also a long-term quasi-periodic cycle from 40-60 years that the LOD and the climate seem to share, from this recent paper based on long term NASA JPL and Paris Observatory research (started in the late 1970s).
https://journals.ametsoc.org/ei/article/20/4/1/629 "Does an Intrinsic Source Generate a Shared Low-Frequency Signature in Earth’s Climate and Rotation Rate? "
so there is this
unknown -> LOD
unknown -> PDO
unknown -> AMO
The distinction between ENSO and PDO/AMO is that PDO and AMO show some longer term variations, which are not difficult to reproduce based on the beat frequencies of closely spaced tidal periods.
(compress the horizontal so it looks the same scale as above)
which implies that
unknown = tides
This is intriguing but there's not a lot of data from which to draw conclusions from.
So how would you refute the following argument from a hypothetical AGW skeptic who says:
ok, so the mean contribution from tidal effects is zero. But there are multiple cycles, and we could just happen to be at a place where all the cycles are aligned and contributing to an increase in temperature. So what we've observing now is not about greenhouse gasses at all.
I have a sense of how that could be quickly and resolutely disproved, based upon (1) the relatively short cycles of these planetary events, (2) the small magnitude of these signals compared to huge and unprecedented sudden leap in global temperatures.
But you know the data as an expert. Can you clinch the argument?
Comment Source:Ok.
So how would you refute the following argument from a hypothetical AGW skeptic who says:
> ok, so the mean contribution from tidal effects is zero. But there are multiple cycles, and we could just happen to be at a place where all the cycles are aligned and contributing to an increase in temperature. So what we've observing now is not about greenhouse gasses at all.
I have a sense of how that could be quickly and resolutely disproved, based upon (1) the relatively short cycles of these planetary events, (2) the small magnitude of these signals compared to huge and unprecedented sudden leap in global temperatures.
But you know the data as an expert. Can you clinch the argument?
No, I don't think I have a way to clinch an argument, since science can't prove anything. All that is possible is to produce a better scientific model to explain what is happening than a competing model. This model then has to be socialized via other peer-reviews and validating analyses.
So for the inset in the figure above, which is the analysis by the former NASA JPL researcher Steven L. Marcus, we can offer the expanded model which can be analyzed further. Yet the Marcus paper only has 2 citations so far so that also needs to gather some interest -- i.e. we can lead a horse to water, but can't make it drink.
Comment Source:No, I don't think I have a way to clinch an argument, since science can't prove anything. All that is possible is to produce a better scientific model to explain what is happening than a competing model. This model then has to be socialized via other peer-reviews and validating analyses.
So for the inset in the figure above, which is the analysis by the former NASA JPL researcher Steven L. Marcus, we can offer the expanded model which can be analyzed further. Yet the Marcus paper only has 2 citations so far so that also needs to gather some interest -- i.e. we can lead a horse to water, but can't make it drink.
Hi Paul, as a point of general feedback, I have trouble understanding a lot of your posts, because you assume a readership that understands more of your assumptions than they actually do. Remember that a lot of us are developers, computer scientists, or what have you, who aren't in the know with the specific analyses that you do.
Comment Source:Hi Paul, as a point of general feedback, I have trouble understanding a lot of your posts, because you assume a readership that understands more of your assumptions than they actually do. Remember that a lot of us are developers, computer scientists, or what have you, who aren't in the know with the specific analyses that you do.
With a bit more explanation on the background, I believe could understand significantly more of what you write. So I just have a general request, for a somewhat more pedagogical style. Or else every now and then give a "review presentation" for a wider audience. You don't have to do that, of course, but it could help.
Comment Source:With a bit more explanation on the background, I believe *could* understand significantly more of what you write. So I just have a general request, for a somewhat more pedagogical style. Or else every now and then give a "review presentation" for a wider audience. You don't have to do that, of course, but it could help.
Bearing that in mind, I will ask you about the graph in comment #45. What is the Y axis, called Intensity? You have curves for model and data. What is the data?
Since it just shows cyclic behavior, over a course of centuries, has a baseline of warming due to GHG forcing been subtracted off?
Comment Source:Bearing that in mind, I will ask you about the graph in comment #45. What is the Y axis, called Intensity? You have curves for model and data. What is the data?
Since it just shows cyclic behavior, over a course of centuries, has a baseline of warming due to GHG forcing been subtracted off?
David,
I don't think even climate scientists understand any of this. The only geophysics-based science I put a lot of trust in comes from NASA JPL, because their job depends on getting these things right. For example, on the LOD (length-of-day) measurements, getting this time-series analyzed correctly has implications on all sorts of real-world problems, The small variation in LOD is exactly what is used to correct for leap-seconds in the calibrated clocks that all GPS systems and satellite systems rely on.
I know about this because I was one of the few people that has had the chance to work with these algorithms when I worked on a GPS system several years ago. So when a leap-second update came in from the official time-keepers at IERS, we had to make sure as developers that we updated this correctly in our software (and also test it before hand with simulated drivers). If we missed a leap-second, the fact that all the GPS satellite orbits also relied on this, any calculation of position would be off. see this site: https://timetoolsltd.com/gps/gps-ntp-server/
So my concern is that since no one has any interest in any of this geophysics stuff except for the scientists at NASA JPL, and even they apparently have issues because doing research on climate science is NOT part of their charter. Take for instance, this fellow Steven Marcus who wrote the paper that I referenced above. He did work at NASA JPL for years and must have researched earth rotation physics for much of that time. Yet the paper is not sponsored by NASA JPL, as Dr. Marcus gives his affiliation only as "Private Researcher, Santa Monica, California".
In fact, if you follow the climate science that NASA JPL does, you will find a cookie-crumb trail of interesting climate research leads followed by scientists that have tried to do spin-off research on their own. Google a scientist named Clair Perigaud, and you will find that she wrote many papers and presentations connecting lunar forcing to climate over 10 years ago and then tried to spin it off with a project called http://moonclimate.org. On that site you will find NASA JPL proposals that were not funded and then she apparently gave up.
I may be in too deep on this stuff but that's the way that it is. The state of fundamental research in the USA is hosed under Trump and it won't be getting any better soon. All of this geophysics is linked at an incredibly detailed level and you won't be seeing climate scientists from NOAA or NCAR or universities studying climate change doing any of this either, as they are in too deep under the weight of their behemoth GCM models. The earth is spinning away and they are essentially clueless on all these hints that people like Marcus are putting right in front of their eyes. I recommend you read the Marcus paper and tell me if you can follow his points : https://journals.ametsoc.org/ei/article/20/4/1/629 is open-sourced. Marcus actually thinks that perhaps the change is related to liquid core interactions.
In summary, the interesting part of the AGW signal is what causes the long term variations highlighted below wrt the two troughs (or the peak around 1940) in the GISS temperature time-series:
As I said in the previous comment that there appears to be close to zero interest in pursuing any of these leads.
Comment Source:David,
I don't think even climate scientists understand any of this. The only geophysics-based science I put a lot of trust in comes from NASA JPL, because their job depends on getting these things right. For example, on the LOD (length-of-day) measurements, getting this time-series analyzed correctly has implications on all sorts of real-world problems, The small variation in LOD is exactly what is used to correct for leap-seconds in the calibrated clocks that all GPS systems and satellite systems rely on.
I know about this because I was one of the few people that has had the chance to work with these algorithms when I worked on a GPS system several years ago. So when a leap-second update came in from the official time-keepers at IERS, we had to make sure as developers that we updated this correctly in our software (and also test it before hand with simulated drivers). If we missed a leap-second, the fact that all the GPS satellite orbits also relied on this, any calculation of position would be off. see this site: https://timetoolsltd.com/gps/gps-ntp-server/
So my concern is that since no one has any interest in any of this geophysics stuff except for the scientists at NASA JPL, and even they apparently have issues because doing research on climate science is NOT part of their charter. Take for instance, this fellow Steven Marcus who wrote the paper that I referenced above. He did work at NASA JPL for years and must have researched earth rotation physics for much of that time. Yet the paper is not sponsored by NASA JPL, as Dr. Marcus gives his affiliation only as "Private Researcher, Santa Monica, California".
In fact, if you follow the climate science that NASA JPL does, you will find a cookie-crumb trail of interesting climate research leads followed by scientists that have tried to do spin-off research on their own. Google a scientist named Clair Perigaud, and you will find that she wrote many papers and presentations connecting lunar forcing to climate over 10 years ago and then tried to spin it off with a project called http://moonclimate.org. On that site you will find NASA JPL proposals that were not funded and then she apparently gave up.
I may be in too deep on this stuff but that's the way that it is. The state of fundamental research in the USA is hosed under Trump and it won't be getting any better soon. All of this geophysics is linked at an incredibly detailed level and you won't be seeing climate scientists from NOAA or NCAR or universities studying climate change doing any of this either, as they are in too deep under the weight of their behemoth GCM models. The earth is spinning away and they are essentially clueless on all these hints that people like Marcus are putting right in front of their eyes. I recommend you read the Marcus paper and tell me if you can follow his points : https://journals.ametsoc.org/ei/article/20/4/1/629 is open-sourced. Marcus actually thinks that perhaps the change is related to liquid core interactions.
In summary, the interesting part of the AGW signal is what causes the long term variations highlighted below wrt the two troughs (or the peak around 1940) in the GISS temperature time-series:
As I said in the previous comment that there appears to be close to zero interest in pursuing any of these leads.
Please know I consider myself a babe on the topic of the climate, but I want to help by developing my own understanding. I am very concerned that climate scientist are worried about anthropogenic warming (thanks @WebHubTel). As a person with an system's engineering background I will continue to ask in different manners how we can manage climate change.
Comment Source:Please know I consider myself a babe on the topic of the climate, but I want to help by developing my own understanding. I am very concerned that climate scientist are worried about anthropogenic warming (thanks @WebHubTel). As a person with an system's engineering background I will continue to ask in different manners how we can manage climate change.
There's been some confusion on the forum concerning the interpretation of Paul's model of tidal influences in relation to global warming as a whole. In what follows is my attempt at clarification.
Comment Source:There's been some confusion on the forum concerning the interpretation of Paul's model of tidal influences in relation to global warming as a whole. In what follows is my attempt at clarification.
In comment 55, Paul's chart shows both the observed AMO data, and the data predicted by his model.
Comment Source:Paul has a model for the AMO, which is a well-known phenomenon:
* [Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation)
In comment 55, Paul's chart shows both the observed AMO data, and the data predicted by his model.
The AMO, and hence Paul's tidal model, only describes small perturbations in the rising historical temperature curve - which has been going on since the industrial revolution. Furthermore, these perturbations have a expected value of zero; they are equally likely to cause cooling as they are warming.
Comment Source:The AMO, and hence Paul's tidal model, only describes small perturbations in the rising historical temperature curve - which has been going on since the industrial revolution. Furthermore, these perturbations have a expected value of zero; they are equally likely to cause cooling as they are warming.
To put the scale of these perturbations into perspective, here is a statistic which shows that global warming due to CO2 is delivering about 1000 times as much power into heating the atmosphere than tidal forces can:
Ocean tides have a power of about 300 gigawatts
Global warming due to the Earth trapping solar power is at the rate of about 300 terawatts
So the greenhouse effect is three orders of magnitude higher than any possible tidal effect.
Comment Source:To put the scale of these perturbations into perspective, here is a statistic which shows that global warming due to CO2 is delivering about 1000 times as much power into heating the atmosphere than tidal forces can:
* Ocean tides have a power of about 300 gigawatts
* Global warming due to the Earth trapping solar power is at the rate of about 300 terawatts
So the greenhouse effect is three orders of magnitude higher than any possible tidal effect.
Not even sure how to apply that number. Consider that the reduced gravity of the water at the thermocline may by orders of magnitude less than at the surface. Therefore to move cooler or hotter water up and down in the ocean takes a lot less driving energy than one would imagine. For a density differential of 0.1% at the thermocline, 300 gigawatts of tidal power could easily effectively look like 300 terawatts. However, this is not dissipated as it is just moving the heat around.
The ocean is essentially a finely balanced see-saw, most recent research for ENSO applies reduced-gravity ocean models to simulate the seesaw (see e.g. The El Niño-Southern Oscillation Phenomenon). When both ends of a see-saw are weighted similarly, all that matters is the differential force. That's the idea of an effective gravity.
Comment Source:> "Ocean tides have a power of about 300 gigawatts"
Not even sure how to apply that number. Consider that the reduced gravity of the water at the thermocline may by orders of magnitude less than at the surface. Therefore to move cooler or hotter water up and down in the ocean takes a lot less driving energy than one would imagine. For a density differential of 0.1% at the thermocline, 300 gigawatts of tidal power could easily effectively look like 300 terawatts. However, this is not dissipated as it is just moving the heat around.
The ocean is essentially a finely balanced see-saw, most recent research for ENSO applies reduced-gravity ocean models to simulate the seesaw (see e.g. [The El Niño-Southern Oscillation Phenomenon](https://books.google.com/books?id=qWNEO-zkr9IC)). When both ends of a see-saw are weighted similarly, all that matters is the differential force. That's the idea of an effective gravity.
Well, leaving aside that statistic, the chief point of the clarification remains, which is the tidal approach is modeling some small perturbations that have been observed in the rising historical temperature curve, which have an expected value of zero.
Comment Source:Well, leaving aside that statistic, the chief point of the clarification remains, which is the tidal approach is modeling some small perturbations that have been observed in the rising historical temperature curve, which have an expected value of zero.
Interesting that Michael Mann, who coined the acronym AMO no longer considers the AMO a real oscillation. The new research on AMO by Mann appears to be meant to be somewhat provocative, which is OK as it spurred some discussion on Twitter. His peer-reviewed article is called “Absence of internal multidecadal and interdecadal oscillations in climate model simulations” and its takeaway is right in the title. Essentially, Mann et al are questioning whether the ~60 year oscillation (and perhaps faster cycles) in the AMO behave as an internal property of the Atlantic ocean or whether any cyclic variation is externally forced, which could also be by changes in aerosols as I recall he didn't rule out.
Comment Source:Interesting that Michael Mann, who coined the acronym AMO no longer considers the AMO a real oscillation. The <a href="https://phys.org/news/2020-01-atlantic-pacific-oscillations-lost-noise.html">new research on AMO</a> by Mann appears to be meant to be somewhat provocative, which is OK as it spurred some discussion on <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=Mann%20oscillations&src=typed_query">Twitter</a>. His peer-reviewed article is called <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13823-w">“Absence of internal multidecadal and interdecadal oscillations in climate model simulations”</a> and its takeaway is right in the title. Essentially, Mann <em>et al</em> are <a href="https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/4916/Ktk2FC.gif">questioning</a> whether the ~60 year oscillation (and perhaps faster cycles) in the AMO behave as an internal property of the Atlantic ocean or whether any cyclic variation is externally forced, which could also be by changes in aerosols as I recall he didn't rule out.
"UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) do not appear to exist, according to a team of meteorologists who believe this has implications for both the validity of previous studies attributing past trends to these hypothetical natural oscillations and for the prospects of decade-scale climate predictability.
Using both observational data and climate model simulations, the researchers showed that there was no consistent evidence for decadal or longer-term internal oscillatory signals that could be differentiated from climatic noise — random year to year variation. The only verifiable oscillation is the well-known El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO)."
This may be at odds with Gavin Schmidt at NASA who tweeted
"we have a paper summarizing the improvements that the latest generation of models have made in simulating important modes of variability (ENSO, MJO, PDO, QBO etc.) in the climate system:"
This appears to be a battle of foundational ideas.
Comment Source:Michael Mann again tweeted that he doesn't think that indices such as AMO and PDO are climate modes at all.
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1276630052273369093
Press release on this today : [Atlantic and Pacific oscillations lost in the noise](https://news.psu.edu/story/602574/2020/01/03/research/atlantic-and-pacific-oscillations-lost-noise)
He thinks it is just noise.
> "UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) do not appear to exist, according to a team of meteorologists who believe this has implications for both the validity of previous studies attributing past trends to these hypothetical natural oscillations and for the prospects of decade-scale climate predictability.
>Using both observational data and climate model simulations, the researchers showed that there was no consistent evidence for decadal or longer-term internal oscillatory signals that could be differentiated from climatic noise — random year to year variation. The only verifiable oscillation is the well-known El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO)."
This may be at odds with Gavin Schmidt at NASA who tweeted
https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/1276540221539180544
> "we have a paper summarizing the improvements that the latest generation of models have made in simulating important modes of variability (ENSO, MJO, PDO, QBO etc.) in the climate system:"
[Representation of Modes of Variability in 6 U.S. Climate Models](https://journals.ametsoc.org/jcli/article/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0956.1/348564/Representation-of-Modes-of-Variability-in-6-U-S)
This appears to be a battle of foundational ideas.
Comment Source:This seems important but I don't understand the algorithm -- the data must be buried in an extreme level of noise
["Estimating temporal changes in seismic velocity using a Markov chain Monte Carlo approach"](https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/220/3/1791/5645243)
Comments
If that were true, then greenhouse gas emissions would be even scarier, as temperatures would be even higher if we were in another phase of a tidal cycle.
_If_ that were true, then greenhouse gas emissions would be even scarier, as temperatures would be even higher if we were in another phase of a tidal cycle.Here is another fallacy: China contributes the most to greenhouse emissions, so we don't have to worry about our contribution. Well, suppose, hypothetically that China contributed 90%, and that the biosphere was at the verge of a tipping point. Then our contribution could be the last straw, and so whatever we can do to bring it down will take us that much further away from the tipping point.
Here is another fallacy: China contributes the most to greenhouse emissions, so we don't have to worry about our contribution. Well, suppose, hypothetically that China contributed 90%, and that the biosphere was at the verge of a tipping point. Then our contribution could be the last straw, and so whatever we can do to bring it down will take us that much further away from the tipping point.David said:
The tidal contribution balances to zero based on theory.
There is an interesting direct correlation between the earth's length-of-day (LOD) changes and tidal cycles. This is precise on all the well-known tidal cycles.
tides -> LOD (tidal forcing causes slight torques on the earth's rotation, causing a varying rotation rate)
tides -> ENSO (tidal forcing causes slight torques on the earth's angular momentum, sloshing the ocean)
However there is also a long-term quasi-periodic cycle from 40-60 years that the LOD and the climate seem to share, from this recent paper based on long term NASA JPL and Paris Observatory research (started in the late 1970s).
https://journals.ametsoc.org/ei/article/20/4/1/629 "Does an Intrinsic Source Generate a Shared Low-Frequency Signature in Earth’s Climate and Rotation Rate? "
so there is this
unknown -> LOD
unknown -> PDO
unknown -> AMO
The distinction between ENSO and PDO/AMO is that PDO and AMO show some longer term variations, which are not difficult to reproduce based on the beat frequencies of closely spaced tidal periods.
(compress the horizontal so it looks the same scale as above)
which implies that
unknown = tides
This is intriguing but there's not a lot of data from which to draw conclusions from.
David said: <blockquote>"Paul, do you have a way of quantifying the contributions of tidal vs. greenhouse effects to global warming?"</blockquote> The tidal contribution balances to zero based on theory. There is an interesting direct correlation between the earth's length-of-day (LOD) changes and tidal cycles. This is precise on all the well-known tidal cycles. tides -> LOD (tidal forcing causes slight torques on the earth's rotation, causing a varying rotation rate) tides -> ENSO (tidal forcing causes slight torques on the earth's angular momentum, sloshing the ocean) However there is also a long-term quasi-periodic cycle from 40-60 years that the LOD and the climate seem to share, from this recent paper based on long term NASA JPL and Paris Observatory research (started in the late 1970s). https://journals.ametsoc.org/ei/article/20/4/1/629 "Does an Intrinsic Source Generate a Shared Low-Frequency Signature in Earth’s Climate and Rotation Rate? "  so there is this unknown -> LOD unknown -> PDO unknown -> AMO The distinction between ENSO and PDO/AMO is that PDO and AMO show some longer term variations, which are not difficult to reproduce based on the beat frequencies of closely spaced tidal periods.  (compress the horizontal so it looks the same scale as above)  which implies that unknown = tides This is intriguing but there's not a lot of data from which to draw conclusions from.Ok.
So how would you refute the following argument from a hypothetical AGW skeptic who says:
I have a sense of how that could be quickly and resolutely disproved, based upon (1) the relatively short cycles of these planetary events, (2) the small magnitude of these signals compared to huge and unprecedented sudden leap in global temperatures.
But you know the data as an expert. Can you clinch the argument?
Ok. So how would you refute the following argument from a hypothetical AGW skeptic who says: > ok, so the mean contribution from tidal effects is zero. But there are multiple cycles, and we could just happen to be at a place where all the cycles are aligned and contributing to an increase in temperature. So what we've observing now is not about greenhouse gasses at all. I have a sense of how that could be quickly and resolutely disproved, based upon (1) the relatively short cycles of these planetary events, (2) the small magnitude of these signals compared to huge and unprecedented sudden leap in global temperatures. But you know the data as an expert. Can you clinch the argument?No, I don't think I have a way to clinch an argument, since science can't prove anything. All that is possible is to produce a better scientific model to explain what is happening than a competing model. This model then has to be socialized via other peer-reviews and validating analyses.
So for the inset in the figure above, which is the analysis by the former NASA JPL researcher Steven L. Marcus, we can offer the expanded model which can be analyzed further. Yet the Marcus paper only has 2 citations so far so that also needs to gather some interest -- i.e. we can lead a horse to water, but can't make it drink.
No, I don't think I have a way to clinch an argument, since science can't prove anything. All that is possible is to produce a better scientific model to explain what is happening than a competing model. This model then has to be socialized via other peer-reviews and validating analyses.  So for the inset in the figure above, which is the analysis by the former NASA JPL researcher Steven L. Marcus, we can offer the expanded model which can be analyzed further. Yet the Marcus paper only has 2 citations so far so that also needs to gather some interest -- i.e. we can lead a horse to water, but can't make it drink.Hi Paul, as a point of general feedback, I have trouble understanding a lot of your posts, because you assume a readership that understands more of your assumptions than they actually do. Remember that a lot of us are developers, computer scientists, or what have you, who aren't in the know with the specific analyses that you do.
Hi Paul, as a point of general feedback, I have trouble understanding a lot of your posts, because you assume a readership that understands more of your assumptions than they actually do. Remember that a lot of us are developers, computer scientists, or what have you, who aren't in the know with the specific analyses that you do.With a bit more explanation on the background, I believe could understand significantly more of what you write. So I just have a general request, for a somewhat more pedagogical style. Or else every now and then give a "review presentation" for a wider audience. You don't have to do that, of course, but it could help.
With a bit more explanation on the background, I believe *could* understand significantly more of what you write. So I just have a general request, for a somewhat more pedagogical style. Or else every now and then give a "review presentation" for a wider audience. You don't have to do that, of course, but it could help.Bearing that in mind, I will ask you about the graph in comment #45. What is the Y axis, called Intensity? You have curves for model and data. What is the data?
Since it just shows cyclic behavior, over a course of centuries, has a baseline of warming due to GHG forcing been subtracted off?
Bearing that in mind, I will ask you about the graph in comment #45. What is the Y axis, called Intensity? You have curves for model and data. What is the data? Since it just shows cyclic behavior, over a course of centuries, has a baseline of warming due to GHG forcing been subtracted off?David, I don't think even climate scientists understand any of this. The only geophysics-based science I put a lot of trust in comes from NASA JPL, because their job depends on getting these things right. For example, on the LOD (length-of-day) measurements, getting this time-series analyzed correctly has implications on all sorts of real-world problems, The small variation in LOD is exactly what is used to correct for leap-seconds in the calibrated clocks that all GPS systems and satellite systems rely on.
I know about this because I was one of the few people that has had the chance to work with these algorithms when I worked on a GPS system several years ago. So when a leap-second update came in from the official time-keepers at IERS, we had to make sure as developers that we updated this correctly in our software (and also test it before hand with simulated drivers). If we missed a leap-second, the fact that all the GPS satellite orbits also relied on this, any calculation of position would be off. see this site: https://timetoolsltd.com/gps/gps-ntp-server/
So my concern is that since no one has any interest in any of this geophysics stuff except for the scientists at NASA JPL, and even they apparently have issues because doing research on climate science is NOT part of their charter. Take for instance, this fellow Steven Marcus who wrote the paper that I referenced above. He did work at NASA JPL for years and must have researched earth rotation physics for much of that time. Yet the paper is not sponsored by NASA JPL, as Dr. Marcus gives his affiliation only as "Private Researcher, Santa Monica, California".
In fact, if you follow the climate science that NASA JPL does, you will find a cookie-crumb trail of interesting climate research leads followed by scientists that have tried to do spin-off research on their own. Google a scientist named Clair Perigaud, and you will find that she wrote many papers and presentations connecting lunar forcing to climate over 10 years ago and then tried to spin it off with a project called http://moonclimate.org. On that site you will find NASA JPL proposals that were not funded and then she apparently gave up.
I may be in too deep on this stuff but that's the way that it is. The state of fundamental research in the USA is hosed under Trump and it won't be getting any better soon. All of this geophysics is linked at an incredibly detailed level and you won't be seeing climate scientists from NOAA or NCAR or universities studying climate change doing any of this either, as they are in too deep under the weight of their behemoth GCM models. The earth is spinning away and they are essentially clueless on all these hints that people like Marcus are putting right in front of their eyes. I recommend you read the Marcus paper and tell me if you can follow his points : https://journals.ametsoc.org/ei/article/20/4/1/629 is open-sourced. Marcus actually thinks that perhaps the change is related to liquid core interactions.
In summary, the interesting part of the AGW signal is what causes the long term variations highlighted below wrt the two troughs (or the peak around 1940) in the GISS temperature time-series:
As I said in the previous comment that there appears to be close to zero interest in pursuing any of these leads.
David, I don't think even climate scientists understand any of this. The only geophysics-based science I put a lot of trust in comes from NASA JPL, because their job depends on getting these things right. For example, on the LOD (length-of-day) measurements, getting this time-series analyzed correctly has implications on all sorts of real-world problems, The small variation in LOD is exactly what is used to correct for leap-seconds in the calibrated clocks that all GPS systems and satellite systems rely on. I know about this because I was one of the few people that has had the chance to work with these algorithms when I worked on a GPS system several years ago. So when a leap-second update came in from the official time-keepers at IERS, we had to make sure as developers that we updated this correctly in our software (and also test it before hand with simulated drivers). If we missed a leap-second, the fact that all the GPS satellite orbits also relied on this, any calculation of position would be off. see this site: https://timetoolsltd.com/gps/gps-ntp-server/ So my concern is that since no one has any interest in any of this geophysics stuff except for the scientists at NASA JPL, and even they apparently have issues because doing research on climate science is NOT part of their charter. Take for instance, this fellow Steven Marcus who wrote the paper that I referenced above. He did work at NASA JPL for years and must have researched earth rotation physics for much of that time. Yet the paper is not sponsored by NASA JPL, as Dr. Marcus gives his affiliation only as "Private Researcher, Santa Monica, California". In fact, if you follow the climate science that NASA JPL does, you will find a cookie-crumb trail of interesting climate research leads followed by scientists that have tried to do spin-off research on their own. Google a scientist named Clair Perigaud, and you will find that she wrote many papers and presentations connecting lunar forcing to climate over 10 years ago and then tried to spin it off with a project called http://moonclimate.org. On that site you will find NASA JPL proposals that were not funded and then she apparently gave up. I may be in too deep on this stuff but that's the way that it is. The state of fundamental research in the USA is hosed under Trump and it won't be getting any better soon. All of this geophysics is linked at an incredibly detailed level and you won't be seeing climate scientists from NOAA or NCAR or universities studying climate change doing any of this either, as they are in too deep under the weight of their behemoth GCM models. The earth is spinning away and they are essentially clueless on all these hints that people like Marcus are putting right in front of their eyes. I recommend you read the Marcus paper and tell me if you can follow his points : https://journals.ametsoc.org/ei/article/20/4/1/629 is open-sourced. Marcus actually thinks that perhaps the change is related to liquid core interactions. In summary, the interesting part of the AGW signal is what causes the long term variations highlighted below wrt the two troughs (or the peak around 1940) in the GISS temperature time-series:  As I said in the previous comment that there appears to be close to zero interest in pursuing any of these leads.Please know I consider myself a babe on the topic of the climate, but I want to help by developing my own understanding. I am very concerned that climate scientist are worried about anthropogenic warming (thanks @WebHubTel). As a person with an system's engineering background I will continue to ask in different manners how we can manage climate change.
Please know I consider myself a babe on the topic of the climate, but I want to help by developing my own understanding. I am very concerned that climate scientist are worried about anthropogenic warming (thanks @WebHubTel). As a person with an system's engineering background I will continue to ask in different manners how we can manage climate change.@DanielGeisler Sounds good.
@DanielGeisler Sounds good.There's been some confusion on the forum concerning the interpretation of Paul's model of tidal influences in relation to global warming as a whole. In what follows is my attempt at clarification.
There's been some confusion on the forum concerning the interpretation of Paul's model of tidal influences in relation to global warming as a whole. In what follows is my attempt at clarification.Paul has a model for the AMO, which is a well-known phenomenon:
In comment 55, Paul's chart shows both the observed AMO data, and the data predicted by his model.
Paul has a model for the AMO, which is a well-known phenomenon: * [Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation) In comment 55, Paul's chart shows both the observed AMO data, and the data predicted by his model.What is new in his approach is the explanation of this oscillation in terms of tidal effects.
What is new in his approach is the explanation of this oscillation in terms of tidal effects.Now let's put the AMO into the context of global warming as a whole.
Now let's put the AMO into the context of global warming as a whole.The AMO, and hence Paul's tidal model, only describes small perturbations in the rising historical temperature curve - which has been going on since the industrial revolution. Furthermore, these perturbations have a expected value of zero; they are equally likely to cause cooling as they are warming.
The AMO, and hence Paul's tidal model, only describes small perturbations in the rising historical temperature curve - which has been going on since the industrial revolution. Furthermore, these perturbations have a expected value of zero; they are equally likely to cause cooling as they are warming.To put the scale of these perturbations into perspective, here is a statistic which shows that global warming due to CO2 is delivering about 1000 times as much power into heating the atmosphere than tidal forces can:
So the greenhouse effect is three orders of magnitude higher than any possible tidal effect.
To put the scale of these perturbations into perspective, here is a statistic which shows that global warming due to CO2 is delivering about 1000 times as much power into heating the atmosphere than tidal forces can: * Ocean tides have a power of about 300 gigawatts * Global warming due to the Earth trapping solar power is at the rate of about 300 terawatts So the greenhouse effect is three orders of magnitude higher than any possible tidal effect.Not even sure how to apply that number. Consider that the reduced gravity of the water at the thermocline may by orders of magnitude less than at the surface. Therefore to move cooler or hotter water up and down in the ocean takes a lot less driving energy than one would imagine. For a density differential of 0.1% at the thermocline, 300 gigawatts of tidal power could easily effectively look like 300 terawatts. However, this is not dissipated as it is just moving the heat around.
The ocean is essentially a finely balanced see-saw, most recent research for ENSO applies reduced-gravity ocean models to simulate the seesaw (see e.g. The El Niño-Southern Oscillation Phenomenon). When both ends of a see-saw are weighted similarly, all that matters is the differential force. That's the idea of an effective gravity.
> "Ocean tides have a power of about 300 gigawatts" Not even sure how to apply that number. Consider that the reduced gravity of the water at the thermocline may by orders of magnitude less than at the surface. Therefore to move cooler or hotter water up and down in the ocean takes a lot less driving energy than one would imagine. For a density differential of 0.1% at the thermocline, 300 gigawatts of tidal power could easily effectively look like 300 terawatts. However, this is not dissipated as it is just moving the heat around. The ocean is essentially a finely balanced see-saw, most recent research for ENSO applies reduced-gravity ocean models to simulate the seesaw (see e.g. [The El Niño-Southern Oscillation Phenomenon](https://books.google.com/books?id=qWNEO-zkr9IC)). When both ends of a see-saw are weighted similarly, all that matters is the differential force. That's the idea of an effective gravity.Well, leaving aside that statistic, the chief point of the clarification remains, which is the tidal approach is modeling some small perturbations that have been observed in the rising historical temperature curve, which have an expected value of zero.
Well, leaving aside that statistic, the chief point of the clarification remains, which is the tidal approach is modeling some small perturbations that have been observed in the rising historical temperature curve, which have an expected value of zero.Interesting that Michael Mann, who coined the acronym AMO no longer considers the AMO a real oscillation. The new research on AMO by Mann appears to be meant to be somewhat provocative, which is OK as it spurred some discussion on Twitter. His peer-reviewed article is called “Absence of internal multidecadal and interdecadal oscillations in climate model simulations” and its takeaway is right in the title. Essentially, Mann et al are questioning whether the ~60 year oscillation (and perhaps faster cycles) in the AMO behave as an internal property of the Atlantic ocean or whether any cyclic variation is externally forced, which could also be by changes in aerosols as I recall he didn't rule out.
Interesting that Michael Mann, who coined the acronym AMO no longer considers the AMO a real oscillation. The <a href="https://phys.org/news/2020-01-atlantic-pacific-oscillations-lost-noise.html">new research on AMO</a> by Mann appears to be meant to be somewhat provocative, which is OK as it spurred some discussion on <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=Mann%20oscillations&src=typed_query">Twitter</a>. His peer-reviewed article is called <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13823-w">“Absence of internal multidecadal and interdecadal oscillations in climate model simulations”</a> and its takeaway is right in the title. Essentially, Mann <em>et al</em> are <a href="https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/4916/Ktk2FC.gif">questioning</a> whether the ~60 year oscillation (and perhaps faster cycles) in the AMO behave as an internal property of the Atlantic ocean or whether any cyclic variation is externally forced, which could also be by changes in aerosols as I recall he didn't rule out.Michael Mann again tweeted that he doesn't think that indices such as AMO and PDO are climate modes at all.
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1276630052273369093
Press release on this today : Atlantic and Pacific oscillations lost in the noise
He thinks it is just noise.
This may be at odds with Gavin Schmidt at NASA who tweeted
https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/1276540221539180544
Representation of Modes of Variability in 6 U.S. Climate Models
This appears to be a battle of foundational ideas.
Michael Mann again tweeted that he doesn't think that indices such as AMO and PDO are climate modes at all. https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1276630052273369093 Press release on this today : [Atlantic and Pacific oscillations lost in the noise](https://news.psu.edu/story/602574/2020/01/03/research/atlantic-and-pacific-oscillations-lost-noise) He thinks it is just noise. > "UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) do not appear to exist, according to a team of meteorologists who believe this has implications for both the validity of previous studies attributing past trends to these hypothetical natural oscillations and for the prospects of decade-scale climate predictability. >Using both observational data and climate model simulations, the researchers showed that there was no consistent evidence for decadal or longer-term internal oscillatory signals that could be differentiated from climatic noise — random year to year variation. The only verifiable oscillation is the well-known El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO)." This may be at odds with Gavin Schmidt at NASA who tweeted https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/1276540221539180544 > "we have a paper summarizing the improvements that the latest generation of models have made in simulating important modes of variability (ENSO, MJO, PDO, QBO etc.) in the climate system:" [Representation of Modes of Variability in 6 U.S. Climate Models](https://journals.ametsoc.org/jcli/article/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0956.1/348564/Representation-of-Modes-of-Variability-in-6-U-S) This appears to be a battle of foundational ideas.This seems important but I don't understand the algorithm -- the data must be buried in an extreme level of noise "Estimating temporal changes in seismic velocity using a Markov chain Monte Carlo approach"
This seems important but I don't understand the algorithm -- the data must be buried in an extreme level of noise ["Estimating temporal changes in seismic velocity using a Markov chain Monte Carlo approach"](https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/220/3/1791/5645243)Japan actually wobbled back and forth prior to the 2011 earthquake/tsunami
https://youtu.be/BTjjsIBwojY
LOD changes due to tidal forces
Japan actually wobbled back and forth prior to the 2011 earthquake/tsunami https://youtu.be/BTjjsIBwojY LOD changes due to tidal forces