Sunday, September 28, 2014

Some sciency questions, plus a note on etiquette

Sou | 4:08 AM Go to the first of 100 comments. Add a comment

Update 2: see below for Anthony's excuses.

Update: see below for Anthony Watts' "report" of Professor Mann's Bristol lecture.

Some sciency questions

I added a note about the new stadium wave paper at the end of my last article. I do have some question for readers. On page two of the paper (subs req'd), when talking about their pattern searching, the authors write:
Following Tsonis et al. [2007], Wyatt et al. [2012] considered a network of climate indices associated, geographically and dynamically, with different climatic subsystems, and used an objective filtering method to isolate secular multidecadal variability within this network during the 20th century. On top of a uniform linear trend, they identified an oscillatory-looking wiggle with a common multidecadal time scale, but with different phases across the different indices of the climate network, thus manifesting a signal that propagates in the space of climate indices. The authors termed this propagating signal the “stadium wave,” reflecting a speculation that it dynamically originates in the North Atlantic and spreads over the remainder of the Northern Hemisphere via a hypothesized sequence of delayed dynamical feedbacks. However, search for the stadium wave in a suite of simulations by multiple global climate models only returned stationary, in-phase signals [Wyatt and Peters, 2012], in sharp contrast with the observational analysis of Wyatt et al. [2012].
There were a few questions that popped into my mind when I read that. Perhaps a reader can help out and explain the scientific jargon:
  • What is a network of climate indices?  
  • What is the difference between an objective filtering method and a non-objective filtering method?
  • What does an oscillatory-looking wiggle look like?
  • What does a non-oscillatory-looking wiggle look like?
  • What makes an oscillatory-looking wiggle distinguishable from an oscillatory-looking waddle?
  • How much space is required for climate indices?
  • How do you tell the difference between a dynamic origination and a non-dynamic origination?
  • What is the difference between a dynamical feedback and a regular feedback?

Thanks in advance, all you science aficionados.

A note on etiquette

On a separate topic, I notice that Anthony Watts is feeling a bit put upon that people have noticed that he doesn't have what it takes when it comes to the crunch. (That's non-science jargon for, well, you can guess.)

Anthony, full of bravado and egged on by his adoring hangers-on, jumped on a plane paid for by those same adoring hangers-on, full of promise to put those supposed miscreant scientists on the spot and ask them some hard-hitting questions.

When Anthony arrived, he found himself confronted, in person, face to face, by the three people in the entire world who, out of all the scientists he rubbishes, he has probably spent more time viciously attacking and telling lies about than any others. (See here and here and here and particularly here for the background.)

Anthony went to water.

Cowed by the reality that there he was, in a university of all places, a place that doesn't just like knowledge it actually creates knowledge. The very antithesis of Anthony Watts' world. Not only that but he was in a foreign country, surrounded by people who not only spoke a different language, they knew a lot more about climate science than he ever could hope to know.  And to top it off he discovered the lectures were being recorded on video. Anthony probably had visions of Paul Nurse and James Delingpole. Cowed, he shrank into his chair and could barely wait until the ordeals ended.

Tail between his legs, he slunk back to his Californian basement, turned on his computer terminal and mumbled: "I only went to watch." Which didn't faze his hard-core supporters, who assured him "You're the man!"

Well, that was too much. Being mocked even by his hard-core supporters. With a monitor shielding him from his nemeses, his cyber-self finally donned the bravado he is known for, he strode over to Facebook and bravely wrote: "May I ask a question?"

He was feeling up again. No longer worried that he might have to look someone in the eye.

Buoyed by his courage at being able to venture into the lion's cyberden, he boldly took a snapshot. Next visited Twitter and boasted to all and sundry that his bravado had returned, now that he didn't have to face anyone in person. Now that he could hide behind his monitor, getting lots of retweets and replies of support from supposed friends and allies. ("That means I must be right" thinks Anthony.)

Now Anthony wasn't invited into the personal log of this scientist. He barged in uninvited. Needless to say he was swiftly and politely shown the door. And just so you know:
If you have a habit of making false, inflammatory, and/or defamatory statements about climate scientists in public then, no, you're not welcome at this facebook page. There are other outlets for you in that case. Thanks!

(Just so you know - it's the same here at HotWhopper.)

Anthony is satisfied. He breathes a sigh of relief. Order has been restored and he didn't even have to think up a dumb question. Saved by etiquette. He is once more king of denialism. He has shown his fans that scientists refuse to debate fake sceptics. He is the Man. (Oops!)

The few climate bloggers who noticed the exchange might have thought of Anthony and his charade: "What a bunch of mindless yobbos".

The rest of the world thinks - umm, nothing. If asked they'd say "Who? Who is Anthony Watts? Oh, you mean the rugby player/bikie/boxer? Not his style."


Anthony Watts has finally written his "report" of Dr Mann's presentation. Showing two things. First: Anthony Watts is incapable of writing a report. Secondly, his fans wouldn't know a report if they tripped over one and are easily pleased. His "report" is nothing more than a collection of photos of Dr Mann's presentation, with very short comment/description underneath.

With no hint that he understands the meaning of intellectual property, under one of his photos he wrote: "I wonder if he got permission from Accu-Weather to use that graphic?" One may ask, "I wonder if Anthony Watts got permission to post all Dr Mann's slides". (In response to a question about this, Anthony claimed it is "fair use". I'd question that. One or two slides maybe, to illustrate a point. But not all of them with barely a word of analysis. I've not linked to the WUWT page or an archived version for obvious reasons.)

And again, with no hint of duplicity he claims, about a photo of Dr Mann's own child: " I don’t think children should be used as props.". This the day after Anthony himself stole a photo of a mother and child to persuade his readers to sign up to a fake religion's repulsive "declaration"! (h/t CM)

Update 2: The gutless wonder - excuses, excuses

Anthony Watts admits he's a gutless wonder (archived here, latest update here). In the process describes his paranoid conspiracy ideation, among other things.

First he tries to foist the blame on Michael Mann claiming he has a "record of hostility". WTF! It's Anthony Watts who hasn't let up on defaming Dr Mann and telling lies about him and his work.  (Didn't he realise when he made the booking that Michael Mann would be there, to answer his "many questions"?)

Next he blames Professor Lewandowsky. [Edit: Just for being there, mind you. Not for anything he did or didn't do there.] Yeah, it's all his fault - not! Remember Anthony's fake bravado when he boasted he was "Headed into ‘Lew-world’" and begged for money? What happened?

Anthony's still behaving exactly as I described above. Words like worthless, slimeball and cowardly come to mind.

He confesses he wasted his readers' money and got it under false pretences, but no-one's asked for a refund, yet.

Anthony was too chicken to admit that his "big brave question" to Michael Mann on Facebook was nothing more than:

"...will you take my question now?"

.h/t Raoul :)

From the WUWT comments

Anthony's sycophants supported him, boosting his fragile ego, muttering stuff like of course you did the wise thing, oh wise one and I see now you did the right thing. There was one person who had sufficient independence of mind to buck the trend. Velcro wrote:
September 28, 2014 at 10:54 am
The venue was the venue. Nothing Mann could do about the separation between podium and audience. Seems to me that the sceptic community criticise the warmists for not being prepared to debate, yet on this occasion, when there was the opportunity to question, we sceptics passed up the chance. I would have been inclined to ask something like ‘ do you attach any significance to the fact that if one plots annual global temperature against year for the past 18 odd years, one gets a horizontal line? And if you don’t then why not?

This is for Velcro. And this, too. And don't forget this from Gavin Schmidt.

Finally, one slipped by the mods - for everybody, from tz
September 28, 2014 at 1:47 pm
The Mann-o-sphere v.s. Kochtopussy.

Anthony Watts can't help himself. Was he born a liar?

And finally finally, for anyone who has fallen for Anthony's fairytale that he "booted me off WUWT for being overly disruptive". He didn't. He banned me over a fairly mild tweet. This "clueless female eco-nut" who is "isolated, lonely" and petless or is she a "crazy, nasty,spiteful witch" posted only about 30 comments in four years at WUWT, none of which could be described as "overly disruptive" by any stretch of the imagination. Some of my mild comments annoyed Anthony and Smokey/DB Stealey, for some reason. Too sciency I expect. (I'm wondering if Anthony thinks any blogger who ridicules others, be they anti-science or pro-science, must be isolated, lonely and petless.)

[Update to an update: No-one at WUWT commented on what I write but there are lots of theories as to why I write. The latest theory is that I have a all the hallmarks of being a child abuse victim. (Deniers apparently cannot fathom why people would poke fun at their anti-science efforts and pseudo-science and replace it with science. First time I've heard "alarmism" blamed on child abuse though. Is this intended as a milder form of Steyn-abuse?) Sou 29 September 2014]

Nor was I ever kicked off any discussion board for being overly disruptive. (When Anthony wrote in the plural, he was using what passes for blog licence on disinformation blogs. There is no plural. There is only one other instance that he is referring to.) However it wasn't for disruption. I was scarcely ever even modded on that share trading website (a site where deleting comments is the norm, not the exception). They just decided they didn't want a woman in their 'men only' club, after she once commented on the misogyny prevalent there - still, going by the comments here. Much like the way Anthony Watts soon bans almost everyone who prefers climate science to pseudoscience.


  1. Hi Sou. sorry but you have your facts wrong

    Michael was making that comment, to an earlier comment of mine that was deleted.

    Anthony added his question, after mine had disappeared, and Michael had made his comment.

    my response to Michaels defamatory, habit comment was this, but blocked:

    Perhaps you need to rewrite this blog post, referring to me, instead of Anthony, to be accurate,

    1. Poor Barry. Oh my. You wanna be 'da man' too, do you?

      You know I wasn't writing about you. I was writing about Anthony Watts. Follow the links in my article. Anthony did indeed boast about asking a question on the Facebook page.

      Dr Mann's comment would apply to anyone who makes a habit of making up stuff about scientists. Despite Dr Mann's caution Anthony went ahead and tried to comment. He tweeted about it. Anthony's comment was deleted. Enough said.

    2. Just so you know, folks. Barry is jumping up and down because he was the first yobbo to be shown the door. Perhaps he's arguing that it was his rudeness that gave Anthony Watts that necessary drop of extra courage.

      Feel better now, Barry?

    3. Barry didn't get invited to 'the dinner' either. He's desperate to be thought of as a serious colleague of both scientists and denialists.

    4. It looks like someone is "playing the victim" here, I am sure not everyone in the "contingent" were hard of hearing and thus uncomfortable asking questions.

  2. > What is a network of climate indices?

    I think its a somewhat misleading term in this context. They just mean a "collection" or "set". There's no real "network effect".

    > What is the difference between an objective filtering method and a non-objective filtering method?

    yeah, well, again likely meaningless. They've selected MSSA, and they've selected some measure of filtering to remove "high frequency" noise, and these choices are not objective.

    > oscillatory-looking wiggle

    F*ck*n 'ell, they really got away with writing that? Reviewers, nowadays.

    > a signal that propagates in the space of climate indices

    That's almost an interesting concept. But they didn't do it in the 2012 paper, and I bet they don't do it here either.

    > dynamically originates in the North Atlantic

    This is, I think, more words covering their ignorance. The 2012 paper really had nothing of mechanisms in it. What they're saying with that phrase is, I think, that its not starting from external forcing - something within the internal dynamics of the system causes it. But they've no idea what. Since the SW probably doesn't exist, that's not too surprising.

    1. "oscillatory-looking wiggle" - sounds like something one of my PhD students would write, upon which I would ask him or her to kindly come up with a slightly more scientific term. Here we have three(!) professors and one idontknowwhatsheisatthemoment who actually came up with that term.

      BTW, does anyone know since when Wyatt is at the Dept of Geological Sciences at UC@Boulder? She isn't listed there. I know she got her PhD there some years ago (2010?), but it's a little bit odd to still list that as your affiliation if you don't work there anymore.

    2. I'd have thought an oscillatory wiggle would tend to a sinusoidal shape and a period whereas yer more common riff raff type of wiggle would just be ill-shaped random cack.

    3. A network in this case means that you have different geographical points at which the indices are measured, these can be considered to be linked together both by geographical features and proximity. A stadium wave is going to move between linked nodes on that network.

    4. 'manifesting a signal that propagates in the space of climate indices' is a fancy way of saying that the signal is observed by watching the values of climate indices change. Its language I'd expect to see more in maths papers. So no space is required, the indices are 'a space'.

    5. 'Dynamical' as opposed to 'dynamic' I'd never heard of. God bless Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamical_system

    6. Well, there you go. I've learnt something too.

      Here's something about dynamical systems and climate.

    7. All the possible states of a Rubic Cube are a 'set'.

      Obfuscation is the real aim of this paper.

      When you have a paucity of data to prove some 'trend' then go for a complex meta analysis that is totally meaningless but sounds good to the ignorant audience.

      Analysing noise will give similar results.

      Remember folks that there is only one dogma in science.

      When measuring anything it is the ratio of signal to noise that gives you a confidence level that your measurement is real!
      Us Physicists make an exception for quantum measurements as we get such paradoxes that a particle can be in two places at once or everywhere at once.

      My limited Physics does not know about these esoteric methods of analysis.

      I would look at the power spectrum first to see if the signal was real.

      A Fourier analysis would also show if it was noise or not.


    8. Regarding Sou's questions about the Stadium Wave, well what does it look like? Is it a series of index changes, that is, numerical as opposed to physical. More math than physical? I'll take the unpopular approach that it might be physical by using sea ice and a bit of Greenland ice sheet melting. Both of these things have a memory of past temperatures. We want a network to store information and perhaps energy, and ice can do that. We also want a network to transmit information. Sea ice there transmits one kind of information and sea ice not there transmits another kind. I mentioned the ice sheet as it can change area salinity levels. During extended melting periods, it can sustain freshwater. When it gets colder, it slows that down. There may be no waves in Arctic sea ice variations, but think of very slow moving waves that take years or decades. Unfortunately I haven't been able find much on physical wave propagation through a network and there may be a good reason for that.

      From our Navy it seems here's North of Alaska sea ice more or less for this year:
      The red is the heavy ice. Looks like a standing wave. With a helpful North South orientation.

    9. I'm trying to be nice Ragnaar, but I don't know how else to say that you're making no sense. Here, go look for the stadium wave in this chart:

    10. My understanding is that it's about the geographical distribution of the sea ice, and that this effects the total area. Your link shows about 34 years. Time will tell if it captured the declining phase of a 60 to 70 year cycle.

    11. How is one supposed to identify a 60 to 70 year cycle when only given 34 years of data? Is this perhaps just wishful thinking? We know things weren't like they are now in the Arctic Ocean 60 to 70 years ago.

    12. Umm, how are we going to see the "up" part of the cycle when there's no summer ice at the end of the supposed "cycle." That graph will have flattened to zero, lol. Also, how can we be in the "decline" of the cycle for 34 years straight when there's a supposed "pause"? :) Let's try to stop any cognitive dissonance right when we see it.

      Seriously, this exact conversation is why the whole talk of the "stadium wave" is ludicrous except as a minor effect.

    13. We may not be able to identify a cycle, but given the history of the AMO and PDO indices it's plausible there is one. As I understand it, an AMO sign change would coincide with an Arctic sea ice recovery. The AMO sign seems to have changed and the Arctic sea ice seems to have reversed, but it's too early to tell.
      “During winter, the Arctic’s atmosphere is very cold. In comparison, the ocean is much warmer. The sea ice cover separates the two, preventing heat in the ocean from warming the overlying atmosphere. This insulating effect is another way that sea ice helps to keep the Arctic cold.”
      So removing sea ice arguably cools parts of the Arctic ocean, while building sea ice arguably warms parts of it. Interestingly, this lose of sea ice is 'the heat coming out of the oceans' via the removal of insulation. It's this heat that helps materially warm the Arctic atmosphere.

    14. Huh? This sounds like bias projection: "The AMO sign seems to have changed and the Arctic sea ice seems to have reversed, but it's too early to tell." Again, you're making no sense. Let's make it simple. Cycles would increase ice and then decrease ice yet we've had a nonstop decline for as long as we have been measuring. Are you saying there's a perpetual motion machine driving ice down while solar radiance has declined? Your sounding like Bob Tisdale. There's this thing called conservation of energy. So when the earth is accumulating more and more energy every year (~10^21 joules/year) due to greenhouse gases, your stadium wave is just noise. This is why the sea levels are rising, the ice is melting and we just had the hottest Aug on record. These are facts.

    15. We have about 34 years of good Arctic sea ice data. As they suggested about the paper, that pause may have been holding off until the AMO sign change. The suggestion is as far as I know was, the Arctic ocean has been cooling lacking sea ice insulation. It's now ready to build ice. It's not the first time someone has suggested we're looking at only about 1/2 the cycle and projecting that in a linear way.
      On some website about the Wave that appears to be Wyatt's she explains the interesting sign change. The West Eurasian shelf sea region ocean water when warm, melts ice and heat escapes. I think the sea ice is an important part of the answer.

    16. Ragnaar writes "As I understand it, an AMO sign change would coincide with an Arctic sea ice recovery. The AMO sign seems to have changed and the Arctic sea ice seems to have reversed, but it's too early to tell"

      This AMO that you are talking about, I assume you mean the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. If that's the case, you seem horribly confused.

      You assert that the AMO has changed sign, but if we look at the data here.

      It hasn't even come close to changing sign. It's still in positive/warm territory, with an upward trend.

      And you assert that Arctic sea ice seems to have reversed, but again, if we look at the latest ice volume data here.

      It is still around the downward trend line. You seem unable to comprehend a simple graph and trend lines.

      Let me give you a simple lesson. If a data series is following an upward trend, like the AMO, it means that it is getting warmer. If a data series is following a downward trend, like Antarctic sea ice volume, it means that it is getting less. There are no indications in the sea ice volume chart that there is any reversal at all.

      You see, to me this is all child's play. I've been studying charts, including stock market price charts for years now, and they all follow the same principle. There is a saying for instance, 'The trend is your friend', but in the case of Arctic sea ice volume, 'The trend is your enemy'.

      I don't know what it is with some people. They seem to 'see' the complete opposite to reality. What I would be really interested in is why your perception is so utterly screwed up. I see this complete distortion of reality in quite a few people (deniers mainly), and I am really curious as to why it happens to you.

    17. ...but it's too early to tell.

      Exactly. It is too early to tell. So, don't tell.

      When there is sufficient data ... Oh wait. It's going down.

    18. Well Ragnaar, DJ and Jammy have already ridiculed your last post to its rightful conclusion. I'll only add that you don't have a trend that strong and that long leading to what you even admit might be an ice free summer in the arctic from a cycle especially when the OHC is going up so much, surface temps have been going up for longer than 60 years and sea levels have been rising for longer than 60 years. IOW, there isn't a perpetual motion machine. 10^21 joules/year of energy is drowning out fluctuations on long time scales. Please show some ability to be self-critical.

    19. The AMO seems to have changed signs:
      From a positive slope to a negative slope. Another interesting thing about the linked graph is the AMO seems to have stalled since about 1998. If you are familiar with Tsonis et al 2007, 1998 was one of those years where things changed.
      At your NH sea ice link:
      I see a reversal but we're going to have to wait for more time to pass. Both graphs fit the Stadium Wave narrative as I see it.
      About the OHC going up so much, the recent Wunsch and Heimbach paper and Jim Steele's comparison of it to prior studies might make one wonder how certain the scientists are about this subject. I haven't read anyone saying Wunsch missed with their paper, or that Steele misrepresented the four studies he compared.
      Here's Trenberth:
      “Yet closure  of  the  observed  energy  budget  over  the  past  5  years  remains  largely  elusive  for  interannual  variations  (Trenberth  2009;  Trenberth  and  Fasullo  2010).  While  some  of  the  previously  “missing  energy” is  accounted  for,  substantial discrepancies  between  OHC  and  CERES  at  interannual  time  scales persist ,  and  are  especially  prominent  during  2008 -­ 9.  Thus  state-­‐of-­‐the-­‐art  observations  and  basic  analysis  are  unable  to  completely  account  for  recent  energy  variability  at  interannual  time  scales,  since  they  provide  either  an  incoherent  narrative  or  imply  error  bars  too  large  to  make  the  products  useful.  Both  TOA  radiation  and  OHC  datasets  need  to  be  improved  further.  A vital need  exists  for  OHC  datasets  of  at  least seasonal  resolution,  with  care  taken  to  reduce  spurious  noise,  if  real  variations  in  nature  are  to  be  adequately  understood.”


      “...an  incoherent  narrative  or  imply  error  bars  too  large  to  make  the  products  useful.”
      Coherency and usefulness are important.

    20. Ragnaar, you've given us at least two examples of strong confirmation bias right there. You don't see what's there you are seeing what you want to see, which isn't at all the same as what is there. (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here. That you aren't deliberately making up stuff because I don't see any benefit to you in that. Quite the reverse. You just come across as someone who cannot read a chart.)

      Changing sign means going from positive to negative or negative to positive. Changing slope is not the same as changing sign. You can say it's changed sign when the AMO has gone into negative territory. Eyeballing a chart and claiming to see something doesn't carry any weight here. Also, why the five year mean? And why start at 1970?


      As for you eyeballing a sea ice volume chart and "seeing a reversal" when the volume is barely above a strongly downward sloping trendline, that's called confirmation bias. Undoubtedly you also saw a reversal in 1981, 1983, 1990, 1996, 2000, 2003, 2008, 2010 and 2012 (the lowest summer ice extent and volume on record). That's despite the fact that ice volume is now 10,000 cubic kilometres less than it was in 1980 and the trend is a loss of 3,000 cubic km a decade.

      I've told you before that Jim Steele makes such a habit of telling lies that he is not to be cited for anything except other lies that he tells. Do not cite him again to support your arguments or you will end up in the HotWhoppery. I do not have time and I doubt anyone else would bother to check every statement he makes. He is not a climate scientist he is a science denier.

      I've already responded to you about Wunsch and Steele here and here. It took some time and effort on my part. Don't act as if you haven't read it and as if I didn't research and write it. That is very rude.

      As you say, coherency and usefulness are important. In future try to be coherent and useful instead of gishgallopy and useless.

    21. In a previous comment you have written that sea ice and ice sheet melt because they have memory of past temperatures. What is your mechanism for "a 'memory' of past temperatures" that sea ice and ice sheets have? Can you cite a source for this 'idea' or is it a personal hypothesis? It's all a bit teleological for me. Is it some sort of reverse thermal inertia? Que?

      In the same comment you refer to heavy ice looking like a " standing wave … With a helpful North South orientation"? What is the mechanism for this standing wave in the ice? Standing waves, per se, in media such as air, water, etc see a transfer of energy via the wave but the nodes remain fixed as a result of destructive and constructive interference between the incident wave and its reflected wave. Or are you using the term standing wave in an allegorical sense?

      How can you write that the AMO seems to have stalled since 1998 without any trendline on your 'woodfortrees' graph? Add the trendline and it looks to have stalled after 2005. But has it? It's made a Wattsian recovery in 2008, and, in true Wattsian style, has rebounded in 2010, just like it has on previous occasions. Praise the Lord!

      And what's this "Both graphs fit the Stadium Wave narrative …"? Could you explain how both graphs "fit" each other in terms of the "Stadium Wave"? The wave frequencies derived from both graphs don't appear to match. And apart from everything else, what is the mechanism for the "Stadium Wave" that raises its "narrative" above that of curve fitting? Just asking.

    22. "What is your mechanism for "a 'memory' of past temperatures" that sea ice and ice sheets have?"

      Sounds like there is a link to homeopathy there. And we all know that works.

    23. Yes, you are right, I am sorry. I said sign change and meant, when the slope stops rising and starts falling. When the peak or trough of the oscillation has been reached. Interpreting when that has occurred can be a problem as how many years is enough for that? Your WFT graph works too. I was trying to make the point of a sort of AMO stall since 1998. With the Arctic sea ice volume, yes it's a short term thing at this point. Looking at the yearly peaks, we have the 2011 peak. Each peak since then has been higher. We have the 2012 trough, and each trough since than has been higher. What I think is important is that both things if they are happening, and happening relative to each other at the right time. Now that the Arctic ocean has thrown off its heat with the help of the AMO while lacking ice, it can now begin to build ice again. If it does that, it will trap heat under the sea ice, reversing the Arctic atmospheric temperatures increases.

      “But it is not clear to me, actually, that an accelerated warming of some sub-surface layer of the ocean (at least in the globally-averaged sense) is robustly supported by the data itself.

      Until we clear up whether there has been some kind of accelerated warming at depth in the real ocean, I think these results serve as interesting hypotheses about why the rate of surface warming has slowed-down, but we still lack a definitive answer on this topic.”
      - Joshua Willis

      Here's a quote from the recent Wunsch paper:
      “A total change in heat content, top-to-bottom, is found (discussed below) of approximately 4 X 10-22 (22nd power) J in 19 years, for a net heating of 0.2 +- 0.1 W/m2; smaller than some published values (e.g., Hansen et al., 2005, 0.86 +- 0.12 W/m2; Lyman et al., 2010, 0.63 +- 0.28 W/m2; or von Schuckmann and Le Traon, 2011, 0.55 +- 0.1 W/m2; but note the differing averaging periods)
      H = 0.86
      L = 0.63
      v = 0.55
      W = 0.20
      Back to the OHC going up so much. 0.86 or 0.20? It matters. If Wunsch is right we just lost material amounts of it. Enough to ask Trenberth about this. Both to these gentlemen are trusted but they can't both be right.

    24. “...sea ice and ice sheet melt because they have memory of past temperatures. What is your mechanism for "a 'memory' of past temperatures" that sea ice and ice sheets have?”
      They have a memory and they melt. They don't melt because they have a memory.
      The mechanism is sea ice thickness. Its resistance to going to zero or melted. During a brutally cold winter holding everything else constant the sea ice will be more inclined to last longer. Thicker ice can record colder ocean temperatures underneath the ice. Thinner ice records past warmer temperatures. That glacier that made it to Minnesota told a story of past colder temperatures.
      “Is it some sort of reverse thermal inertia?”
      Looking at the Antarctic ice sheet, that's a lot of cold. It's a good place to store water at temperatures much lower than 0 C. So we might ask is it a bunch of frozen water or is it there for a good reason?
      “...are you using the term standing wave in an allegorical sense?”
      Climate signal propagation through a network is what interests me. I've been told it's not a physical signal. I am wondering if ice is a physical signal? In that animation it looked to me like an ice wave that wasn't going anywhere because of the land constraint. If the climate is a network, we need to be able to store information. I like ice for that.
      # Trend lines - AMO stall:
      I like 1998. Tsonis 2007 mentioned about that year. I think things changed around 1998. A climate regime change.
      # Wattsian recovery? Anthony?
      # About fitting that narrative. I am doing the best I can with this. The sea ice recovers and the AMO peaks. Has this really happened? I don't know.
      What is the stadium wave mechanism?
      Wyatt's addressed that. Not sure beyond my own opinion. Sea ice and ocean salinity. What is the mechanism, is the critique I've seen most.

    25. Ragnaar, this might answer some of your questions.

      I just did a chart of AMO vs Arctic sea ice at different months of the year - from 1953. Click here to view it.

      The Arctic sea ice is from this paper by W. N. Meier, J. Stroeve, A. Barrett, and F. Fetterer.

      The AMO index is from NOAA.

    26. Ragnaar originally wrote "As I understand it, an AMO sign change would coincide with an Arctic sea ice recovery. The AMO sign seems to have changed and the Arctic sea ice seems to have reversed"

      Despite getting everything muddled up, he is entering a new stage of wishful thinking and shifting the goal posts.

      He is determined to entertain the delusion that once the AMO shifts phase the Arctic sea ice will somehow magically recover back to pre-industrial levels, and that AGW has no effect.

      As much as we all would like to delude ourselves, this is not what this website is all about. It's about demolishing disinformation, and the deluded fantasies of hard nosed deniers.

      Also, as much as I would like believe the hypothesises of accountants and other unqualified pseudoskeptics, I have this crazy notion of trusting the analysis of respected, qualified and published climate scientists.

      So Ragnaar, before digging your hole even deeper, how about this. Actually take a few moments, AND ACTUALLY READ THE PUBLISHED RESEARCH.

      What does the research say? Yes, that the AMO does influence the sea ice variability (along with a whole host of other factors), but the long term downward trend is due to AGW. So unless AGW also reverses, the reversal of the AMO will not lead to a sea ice recovery.

      See this
      which shows that yes, the AMO does influence the variability in sea ice.

      But the long term trend is due to AGW.

      But please go on. Deny the large body of scientific literature.

    27. Sou, the linked AMO vs Arctic sea ice graphs suggest to me there is some relationship.

      “...we find that both the AMO and AMOC indices are significantly correlated with SIE (Sea Ice Extent) in all the models considered. Using sensitivity statistics derived from the models, assuming a linear relationship, we attribute 0.5–3.1%/decade of the 10.1%/decade decline in September SIE (1979–2010) to AMO driven variability.”

      “Comparing trends from the CCSM4 ensemble to observed trends suggests that internal variability explains approximately half of the observed 1979–2005 September Arctic sea ice extent loss.”

      “This observational evidence supports recent modeling studies that have suggested that Arctic sea ice is intrinsically linked to Atlantic multidecadal [natural] variability.”

      DJ writes:
      “He is determined to entertain the delusion that once the AMO shifts phase the Arctic sea ice will somehow magically recover back to pre-industrial levels, and that AGW has no effect.”

      I meant to write the AMO peaks and its slope changes signs from positive to negative with my expectation that the Arctic see ice will recover. I don't think I wrote that AGW has no effect. So we agree that there is an AMO effect and an AGW effect. Now how does the system work? That's the interesting part.

    28. Ragnaar wrote "my expectation that the Arctic see ice will recover"

      You seem to be quite deluded thinking that a phase shift in the AMO will cause a recovery in Arctic sea ice, especially since all the available data and the scientific consensus suggests otherwise. Where is the published paper that agrees with your conclusion, that specifically, sea ice will recover with an AMO phase shift? You haven't even bothered to provide one. (All you have done so far is point to the blatantly obvious, that sea ice is linked to the AMO and internal variability, but you have NOT linked to any specific research relating to your counter consensus assertion that a phase shift in the AMO will lead to a reversal in the long term trend, leading to a recovery.)

      This is from the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
      "Arctic sea ice is declining at an increasing rate in all months of the year, with a stronger decline in summer months. Researchers who study climate and sea ice expect that at some point, the Arctic Ocean will lose its ice cover completely in late summer. A variety of evidence suggests that Arctic sea ice is declining because of climate warming resulting from increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Because greenhouse gases persist and are expected to increase, scientists see no reversal to the downward trend in ice extent."

      It is this sentence that you need to comprehend. Maybe get a friend to explain any of the difficult words, or perhaps read it out aloud a few times.

      "Because greenhouse gases persist and are expected to increase, scientists see no reversal to the downward trend in ice extent"

      Yet you, with not a single climate science related qualification, blissfully and arrogantly claims otherwise.

      Just in case you still don't understand, here it is again.

      "scientists see no reversal to the downward trend in ice extent"

      and again

      "no reversal to the downward trend"

      and again

      "no reversal"

      Have you got it yet?

  3. Not only that but he was in a foreign country....

    Worse, the country whose citizens invented and are masters of the delayed-action insult, the withering remark delivered in a fashion leaving the victim ignorant of humiliating damage until 24 hours after it's delivered, far too late for a rejoinder.

  4. Slight typo Sue

    "What makes an oscillatory-looking wiggle distinguishable from an oscillatory-looking waddle?"

    Should read:

    "What makes an oscillatory-looking wiggle indistinguishable from oscillatory-sounding waffle?"

    Now it is clear.

    1. Suspect word missing. Suggest meant to be:
      meta oscillatory-looking wiggle

    2. The correct phrase is a wiggly-looking oscillation.

      The Wiggles made a little ditty out of it.

  5. As for Anthony's performace: we learn so much from deniers every day. Who would have thought that a 'great many questions' could actually be less than one.

  6. Presumably this wave can be projected into the future? Then we can call the mid-line a prediction and rag on Curry when it turns out not to be entirely accurate over the next few years. That should get some heads spinning.

  7. The only thing of any import concerning Tsonis is that his name is perfect for an anagram server http://wordsmith.org/anagram/anagram.cgi?anagram=tsonis&t=1000&a=n

    Seriously, his annoying harping about chaos probably dissuaded lots of people from attempting to solve such behaviors such as ENSO.

  8. Using slides:
    well, I guess he at least said where the ycame from, but otherwise, he was folloing in Ed Wegman's steps. See Strange Scholarship..., pp.67-70.
    p.70 shows the first 7 slides from a Mann PPT, followed by 3 slides grabbed from there with no attribution ... in a talk to attack to hockey stick ... given to a workshop of expert who were not amused.

    1. John, was Wegman claiming the copied slides as his own? Or did he acknowledge they were from Michael Mann's presentation?

      This issue isn't the quite the same but both are arguably IP theft (assuming Wegman didn't acknowledge the source) .

      Anthony is publishing a full presentation without permission (he effectively admitted he did not get explicit permission). Nor AFAIK are the slides available under licence eg Creative Commons.

      It's similar to copying a DVD or television show and making it available via bittorrent.

      My understanding of IP is that this is a clear breach of copyright. The IP is Dr Mann's. Anthony could get away with fair use if he picked one or two slides to illustrate a point he was discussing. But that's not what he's done. (I don't know that Anthony would be capable of writing a report about the talk.)

    2. The two cases are not the same, in that Wegman didn't Ack Mann.
      It's merely yet another example of abuse of slides.

    3. (Back at computer):
      I am not a lawyer, but have talked to a few. I quite often duplicate texts or graphs, always credited, linked to sources online if possible, usually with extensive dissection and commentary, or at least reduced in size to show overall context, with a lot of discussion of some. (That's sometimes needed tyo avoid any appearance of cherry-pick / quote-mining). Wegman complained that Deep Climate an/or I had made unfair use of Yasmin Said's 2007 talk ... but nothing ever came of that (I suspect that was before he talked to lawyer).
      For that example, see Strange..., pp.89-95.

      Of course, in that case, she never should have given that talk, never should have put the PPT online, and during August 2010, it and other interesting files suddenly disappeared, including mention of the talk in the seminar history. (Someone had to edit it).

      By contrast, Mann might be that displeased the WUWT readers are actually exposed to science, once... :-) See what Anothony had to do to get good material?

      and I'd say both cases are beyond Fair Use, but in different ways.
      I just found it ironic that Wegman took a few of Mann's slides in a talkj in which he attacked the real work.

      I think Anthony's is amusing for another reason

    4. Ha ha. For lurkers it's probably a case of the backfire effect. John Cook explained it to Anthony but I guess it went over his head.

  9. So after the blegging, and all the talk of "going forth and conquering", Watts' killer question–delivered via Facebook–is: "Can I ask a question?". Jesus Christ.

    1. Yep.

      It's even worse. He didn't do that until after he saw that Michael Mann wasn't going to tolerate comments from disinformers and defamers on his page. Until Anthony saw it was safe to be so brave. That he'd not be given a chance in that particular venue.

      The bonus was that he could get brownie points from deniers for his game-playing. No downside. (Unless he still harboured some vague/vain hope of being treated seriously by normal people.)

    2. "...and they want to know why I’m going. Well, that’s for me to know and them to find out."

      I wonder if they have found out yet.

  10. In my circles it was considered gauche to post slides on the web without permission, but among all the ethical missteps one might commit, it was pretty minor. Generally, the slides are of secondary importance in the talk; a good speaker should be able to go forth and bloviate even if the AV equipment craps out (the rare excellent speaker will even educate under such circumstances).

    Of course, legally, it's theft.

  11. I've added a short update.

    Anthony's written a long meandering article listing one excuse after another for not asking even one of his "many questions".

    First it's Michael Mann's fault. Then it's Stephan Lewandowsky's fault. Then he describes the weird workings of his mind.

    He really is a pathetic excuse for a human being. His readers are just as bad for accepting his pathetic excuses and not asking for their money back.


    1. Brave Sir Robin Ran Away Lyrics

      Play Video
      Bravely bold Sir Anthony
      Rode forth from Camelot ...


    2. Oops, sorry about the bad edit ...

  12. Watts gives the impression of being annoyed by people asking that question. Is this question so strange? After making a transcontinental flight at the expense of your fans with as one of the reasons that you would like to ask some questions.

    The new post with excuses is almost about everything but why he did not ask a question. The tribal rant about all the other issues probably helps to suppress critical thinking and thus to suppress opposition by the sponsors of his trip.

    Lovely was the argument "asking a question was very likely a no-win situation for me". And I always thought you ask question at a science talk to improve (your) understanding. Since when is science about winning? Nature always wins. Sounds like an acknowledgement that WUWT is a stealth political advocacy blog.

    1. It's classic Anthony - beating about the bush. Oh, and yes, the game playing. He likes to frame science as a personal battle. Of course it's all about him.

      He is very insecure. He reels out one excuse after another. It's everyone else's fault. He cannot accept responsibility for his actions. Typical of the bully/coward. (Most bullies are insecure cowards.)

    2. Watts has done this kind of silent lurking around before. At last December's AGU meeting, he apparently sat behind me (I never saw his face) at Judith Lean's talk, and lied about about me "grunting" when she showed a slide with a screenshot of WUWT on it.


      After getting called out, he admitted he made it up:


      though he's still left his lie up on his site:


      By the way, his "report" on Lean's lecture was also nothing but pictures of his slides, with no incisive commentary whatsoever.


      He had to beg his readers to attend that conference, too:


  13. Was that performance at the talk incredibly piss-weak of Watts, or the smartest thing he's ever done?

    1. Both? The choices aren't mutually exclusive :D

  14. "Petless"? I would've guess you had at least one cat, maybe thirty. Kidding. (Having lots of cats is a stereotype for lonely women in the USA.) I didn't even know you were a woman until after our third fight over two months. Fight is too strong and implies there were two sides. Berating. Yeah, that's better.

    You occasionally wield rule 5 "ridicule your opponent" quite savagely. But I enjoy your writing and the research you put into most posts, so I put up with it several times per month.

    It's healthy to read critiques. Maybe not healthy for the ego, but it is healthy to look outside the bubble from time to time, especially if you're afraid it might pop.

    Too bad you were banned at WUWT.

  15. You need to put a Triple Face Palm Spit Take warning on this post!

    OMG LOL.

    1. Hi Greg.

      Have you taken the time to read 'Greenpeace - An inside story' by Rex Weyler yet?

  16. @-What does an oscillatory-looking wiggle look like?

    Like a quasi-periodic variation with a characteristic constrained range of frequency and magnitude.

    Like ENSO.
    Its an oscillatory cycle but with an unpredictable frequency and amplitude.

    Finding such an oscillatory-looking wiggle is likely in a single sequence of random noise. Probable if the noise is auto-corraleted.

    If you are looking for such an oscillatory-looking wiggle in the speculative interactions between many sequences of data with any direction and delay of detectable relationship open to the search I suspect it is almost certain you will find some.
    The difficulty is in justifying those you decide are objectively real.

    Without a physical basis for such behavior from a defined dynamical system it looks like numerology to divine a 'Natural' unforced climate variation that can be invoked to cast doubt on the magnitude of any effect from the rising CO2.


    1. Well, there is (or was) a whole journal for such exercises, but Pattern Recognition in Physics was canceled by its publisher, although it may live on elsewhere.

  17. Just read the archived post...all I remember was "waa, waa, waa!" Jeez, my young child has more courage asking questions in public settings. OTOH, my son is pretty sharp.

    1. Anyone reading his blog posts (or this blog) can see that Watts' grasp of the science is poor. You might expect such a person would be intimidated about asking questions in public at a real forum on real science, when he's far outside his comfort zone. And not surprisingly, that's exactly the behavior Watts displays.

  18. The latest in the series of "there must be another reason" hypotheses as to why HotWhopper exists is that I'm a victim of child abuse. Seriously. In some minds, only a deeply scarred person has the wit to poke fun at the myriad and contradictory denier arguments.

    (Anything but the obvious. Occams Razor is nowhere in sight at WUWT.)

    1. Looks like they're as afraid of you as they are of Mann.

  19. Of course these morons are scared of you Sou. Your careful forensic evisceration of their feeble utterances makes you a marked person. It is all projection from these morons as they judge anyone by their own standards. When confronted with reality they go to water. I have trouble keeping up with you and I am a relatively sane retired scientist. Bert

  20. If the best question these morons could have come up with (h/t to Velcro) was based on a faux pause coming from a cherry picked time interval and a cherry picked part of the globe's thermal capacity, then Anthony was lucky he didn't ask it. If they want to look stupid why don't they just wear clown costumes?

    1. It would give clowns a bad name?


  21. I didn't go into any detail of the weird paranoia at WUWT and their attempts to play down the event. I've been reliably informed of the following - much of this you can confirm elsewhere, such as the Cabot Institute person. The questions were not "planted". WUWT's "police" were actually security guards/ushers, as Stephan Lewandowski pointed out. The lecture was indeed a sellout. Any so-called "empty" seats were front rows, reserved for and mostly filled by staff and the people with the microphones (for questions). The venue is used for performances, which is why there was a space between the podium and the seating. Nothing nefarious. If you saw Andrew Montford's weird speculation, well, it's quite normal for guest speakers to spend a minute or so at the side of the stage then walking up to the podium when being introduced. Perhaps Andrew expected Michael Mann to be in the audience and that he would walk up to the stage from there? The lecture wasn't cut short. It went ten minutes longer than scheduled. There was quite a queue lined up for the book signing.

  22. Wow, I read Anthony's excuserama: its so funny. He doubts that Lewandowsky would have allowed him to ask a question even if he'd raised his hand. Uh, but why didn't he raise his hand to prove that point? He wouldn't have even needed to ask a question or even had a question to ask.

    I think that Anthony sat there realising that after years of posting gobshite on his website he had nothing, absolutely nothing, to add to the debate. I think the real cowardice is that he cannot admit that to his sycophantic worshippers.

    1. In Anthony's mind it's all about him. He likes to bignote himself in front of his home crowd. He doesn't like it that most climate scientists aren't even aware of his existence.

      Anthony is so self-absorbed that he thinks that if he was chosen, it would be because he is a "famous" internet blogger, who most people have never heard of BTW. If he wasn't chosen it would have been to slight a "famous" internet blogger, who most people have never heard of BTW.

      He wouldn't consider any other option. Such as that whether he was asked or not asked (if he'd had the gumption to raise his hand), he was just one of the crowd. There were many people attending who were arguably much better known than Anthony Watts. And many more, well-known or not, who would have asked much more incisive questions, if given the chance.

      It would be mildly interesting to know the best seats for people who want to ask questions in a public meeting. (Surely someone has done research on the subject :D)I don't think it would be the front row but I could be wrong. I'd guess somewhere in the middle of the room, and maybe not too far from an aisle. Then the front, followed by the back of the room.

  23. I think that the time of the gish gallop is over. Most leading climate scientists know the drill.
    The morons that spout garbage have no surprises left to put a scientist in a situation where he or she does not have a simple glib answer to an outrageous assertion.

  24. I will be cynical and say the reason for WUWT to attend the conference was to get material and dirt for his denier blog. He wasn't there to learn any science. What a fraud that man is.

  25. The Small Magellan Cloud 9MB


  26. I'm pissed off that Betts acknowledged his presence let alone dined with the prick.

    1. Different strokes. I don't agree with the approach of some UK scientists paying attention to prominent disinformers, as if their anti-science propaganda has any merit or legitimacy. IMO it's not of any value at all. On the contrary, it allows the disinformers to ego trip with their denialati fan base (sometimes misrepresenting the same scientists).

      The UK has some oddities in that way. I suspect it's partly a social thing. Or just a lack of familiarity with communication / cognitive science. The climate scientists' specialty is climate science, not communication or psychology - obviously. They could be unaware of the harm or maybe they think they can offset it somehow. Can't see that happening.

    2. I'll add that I think people like Richard Betts are aware of my opinion on this, and those of some other people. Not that it would matter to them what I think, nor should it :)

      I'm not a cognitive scientist either, so my opinion carries no more weight than his or Ed Hawkins', and a lot less than those of John Cook, Dan Kahan, Stephan Lewandowsky and others much more knowledgeable than I.

    3. I suspect Watt's deceptive triumphalist construction about his mute attendance has given Richard Betts pause.

    4. I don't believe Richard is under any illusions about Anthony Watts (or Andrew Montford or James Delingpole or the GWPF or any of the full-time disinformers). I'm not so sure about his notions of the ancillary benefits of giving them the time of day, or in regard to luke-warmer deniers like Nic Lewis.

    5. I don't think any respect should be shown to any of the participants in that disgusting attempt at an online lynching that was Climategate: that was a defining moment.

  27. Update to the Update: "The latest theory is that I have all the hallmarks of being a child abuse victim." based on the opinion of Raredog's "partner who deals with adults who were abused as children". Hilarious! Apart from the anecdotal aspect of "my partner", there is the absurdity of profiling based on reading blog posts on climate science and ascertaining evidence of low self esteem, loss of dignity, etc., etc. which may, may indicate something.

    Raredog's claim is based on the all-encompassing justification of "characters like her will mostly direct their anger either at other people …" which just about covers it all. I mostly direct my anger at other people, the remainder is directed at animals, plants and inanimate objects; who doesn't? Jail is full of angry people. According to Raredog's partner, jail is full of people who were abused as children.

    To complete Raredog's spurious claim, it is all tied together nicely with "or get involved in causes that seek to punish people who they see as 'evildoers'". According to Raredog's partner, the police force and judiciary are full of people who were abused as children.

    Case dismissed. Maintain the rage, Sou.

    1. Well, I plan to maintain HW for a while :P

      I figure ridicule is usually more effective (and much less draining) than expressing (or repressing) anger. Not always, but most of the time. I prefer to save emotion for people I value and respect. And occasionally for traffic jams, and maybe deadlines :)

    2. Anger, hate?

      "@wattsupwiththat; @VariabilityBlog ah victor so childish, that hate you display."

      Another example of his overestimation of his importance.

      And that just because I occasionally point out how bad the quality of his blog posts is.

  28. Hi all

    I simply believe that it is useful to talk to everybody in this complex discussion - it's be best way to understand where they are coming from. I am aware that some folks disagree with this approach, but don't worry, I'm going in to this with my eyes open.

    FWIW I also engage with climate campaigners - eg. you may have seen my guest posts here and here at Vivienne Westwood's Climate Revolution blog. I also worked with the makers of The Age Of Stupid some years ago, and the organisors of Live Earth.

    There was a time when climate scientists (especially in the Met Office) would not have engaged with anybody at all, and just sat in their ivory towers. This did not get us very far, and arguably set us back because we didn't properly understand how our work was being received or interpreted by a whole range of people. So I am trying to break out of this and talk to *everybody* so I can better understand how the science fits in with the wider picture. Yes, this will mean talking with groups of people who see each other as sworn enemies, and hence are disappointed that I am talking to the 'other side'. Well, that's life I'm afraid.

    PS The first person to cry 'false balance' owes me a beer ;-) I am not in any way seeking or expecting balance, I am just talking to as many people as possible who are involved in the climate change issue in one way or another. BTW some of these interactions are more visible than others, for a variety of reasons. (There's more to life than blogs and the internet.....)

    PPS With all the attention that I get for who I talk to, I'm not sure if people are familiar with my actual work. eg. HELIX is a big international research project that I lead. Would be good to talk about this sometime...... (might be more interesting than who I've had dinner with lately, and certainly more important)



    1. Thanks, Richard. I see some downsides in the approach you and others are taking, that's all. But I understand that you see it as worthwhile and I'm in no position to judge.

      Talking with uncommitted people (esp. those of influence), yes - I see value in that. Talking with run of the mill deniers - some value, yes, mainly because it may influence others. Publicly talking with professional/ semi-professional disinformers - not so much but it depends, I guess, on the what and the how. The behind the scenes stuff, yes - I see there would be value in that, too, with eyes wide open. That's the realm of politics and diplomacy and can be interesting (and risky).

      Also, the UK is different to here.

      I'm harbouring some hope that over the next two or three years this will be almost irrelevant. That more of us will be involved in exploring different policy options for mitigation and adaptation with as many people of as many different viewpoints as possible. That is where I see the value of different ideas. Building and implementing a variety of strategies and approaches that will work or are worth a shot at least, and speed up the shift to modern (clean) energy.

      The good thing about that is that it doesn't matter if people understand the science or even if they accept it or not. It's change in technologies, behaviours etc that will be important. Which I guess is why the anti-science lobby groups want to keep the focus on science (or science denial) because they are against restructuring the energy and transport sectors, trying to protect sectoral interests. The momentum for change is building , and I know those same sectoral (business) interests recognise that. Those that act accordingly will survive. Those that don't change with the times won't. (Like how some newspapers survived the internet and others have fallen by the way.)

      This sort of thing is almost impossible to discuss properly on blogs though, isn't it.

    2. OK, i will say "false balance" and owe you a beer. I do not have strong feelings either way on who you talk to. I do have strong feelings about misinformers being given equal weight on, for example, the BBC or parliamentary select committees. If you meet with people such as this I would hope you would redress the balance by highlighting their misinformation and ethics. Saying it was not a very interesting dinner is a good start. (Does that break Chatham rules?).

    3. Great website by the way, Richard. (I've had a peep before.) Your projects look very interesting, topical and valuable.

  29. A witch?


    You should stop pointing out that Tony is a newt, or else he'll never get better.

  30. “What is a network of climate indices?”

    “Networks have been used to describe and model a wide range of complex systems,
    both natural as well as man-made. One particularly interesting application in the earth sciences is the use of complex networks to represent and study the global climate system.”

    “Recently, the study of complex networks – that is, networks which exhibit non-trivial topological properties – has permeated numerous fields and disciplines spanning
    the physical, social, and computational sciences. So why do networks enjoy such broad appeal? Briefly, it is their ability to serve at once as a data representation, as an analysis framework, and as a visualization tool. The analytic capabilities in particular are quite powerful, as networks can uncover structure and patterns at multiple scales, ranging
    from local properties to global phenomena, and thus help better understand the characteristics of complex systems.”

    “A network is any set of entities (nodes) with connections (edges) between them. The nodes
    can represent physical objects, locations, or even abstract concepts. Similarly, the edges can have many interpretations ranging from physical contact to mathematical relationships and conceptual affiliations. Thus, networks may take many different forms, shapes and sizes. The concept of climate networks was first proposed by Tsonis and Roebber and placed into
    the broader context of complex network literature in: What Do Networks Have to Do with Climate?
    - Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 2006.”


    Pretty sure this is Wyatt:
    “...the theme ubiquitously observed in natural systems: network behavior. Network behavior -- the exact nature of which depends more on architecture of linkages within the network, and less on the individual behavior of the nodes of the network -- gives understanding to an orderliness of interlinked parts. Network parts that are studied in isolation reveal no such order. Parts that are not part of a network, that have no interactive links between them, possess no such order. It seems a message pervasive in nature.”

    I think we are trying to figure out how and perhaps why things organize? When we look at things in isolation in an attempt to define them we may ask, is this thing unaffected by any network it is part of? I'd say sea ice is affecting the climate network and is affected by it. It melted and changed the salinity and ice insulation values. I think the Arctic ocean took notice of that. I'd suggest that lower Arctic ocean salinity levels shortened the Atlantic's meridional surface and near surface heat transport North which would help to cool the Arctic ocean.
    Chen & Tung:
    If we say Chen & Tung are right, things reorganized. Someone had asked about, what sea ice memory? The sea ice that remembered it was a bunch of freshwater caused by past cold, and it liberated that by melting and that changed things.

  31. "Because greenhouse gases persist and are expected to increase, scientists see no reversal to the downward trend in ice extent"

    I see a date on that page you linked, 2010. So what the scientists said is,
    If a) and
    If b)
    then c)
    It's a prediction. They are predicting the trend will continue. 'See' in this case is used to mean, an expectation.
    The d) in this case is natural variability, possibly the AMO and near surface Arctic ocean salinity values. What you quoted if one is only allowed to consider that, omits natural variability. While I will rely on the NSIDC, I think this omission should be corrected by them. One could argue natural variability is material.
    Back to the graph in question:
    It's open to interpretation as to if the trend has reversed? It will take time to tell.

    Perhaps it's my use of the word 'recover'. It is my expectation that the Arctic sea ice will continue to gain area, but not every year, for the next 25 years. Doing so despite the fact that CO2 levels will increase. It is also my expectation that more studies will done on the natural variability component of Arctic sea ice as they are being done for the natural variability contribution to SATs.

    “Comparing trends from the CCSM4 ensemble to observed trends suggests that internal variability explains approximately half of the observed 1979–2005 September Arctic sea ice extent loss.”

    Approximately half of the loss. So what happens when internal variability moves in the the other direction? One could say it's reckless to ignore natural variability.

    1. Two posts and I can't make sense of your comments. All I can tell is that you are ignoring a 35 year trend here:
      And just expect (hope) that it is reversing. Great, I hope it reverses, too, but when I see sea levels rising for over 60 years, surface temps rising for over 60 years, glaciers melting, OHC increasing, etc. and I notice that all of this is perfectly consistent with each other...then, well, I can simply say that you're making no sense. As for natural variability - check the IPCC report and Gavin's work and you'll see that there's an expectation that greenhouse gases from humans are responsible for greater than 100% of the warming (this can happen because other factors cause cooling).

      It's pretty simple. The earth is increasing in energy by 10^21 joules/year while the primary external driver (solar radiation) has been declining. The only solution from physics is that greenhouse gases are keeping more energy within the earth's atmosphere. You expecting does no good. You really think you're smarter or more knowledgeable than thousands of climate scientists? My view is that you are a prime example of the D-K effect.

    2. You still haven't bothered to quote ANY published studies supporting your ideas.

      You gotta laugh when you quote the results of the CCSM4 model suggesting an Arctic sea ice recovery.

      So does the CCSM4 model suggest that there will be any recovery in sea ice?

      "In 21st century integrations with the RCP8.5 future greenhouse gas scenario forcing, CCSM4 simulates significant Arctic sea ice loss and reaches near-ice free September conditions by about 2070"

      How about that. Not a recovery, but ice-free instead. So short answer to Ragnaar. No.

      "In the strongest forcing scenario (RCP8.5), the Arctic becomes summer ice-free by the end of the 21st century and year-round ice-free by the end of the 23rd century."

      Again, No.

      "Under a high-emission scenario both approaches project that September ice extent will drop to ~1.7 million km2 in the mid 2040s and reach the ice-free state (defined as 1 million km2) in 2054–2058"

      Sill No.


      Only once CO2 emissions are reduced. So it's still a big fat No.

      You don't have a shred of science to back your assertions, just a whole lot of wishful thinking.

    3. “The earth is increasing in energy by 10^21 joules/year while the primary external driver (solar radiation) has been declining.”

      Praise the lord and pass the science, I found it:

      Page 13 at my above link. CERES TOA net. It's flat. It has been for 13 years. That implies we are not storing heat. That we are breaking even with inputs and outputs at the TOA. Given the complexities, poor data and uncertainties, I am willing to admit we may be storing small amounts as in the recent Wunsch & Heimbach paper.

      “We  cannot  draw  any  conclusions  about  “missing  energy”  in  the  system  on  the  basis  of  differences  between interannual  variations  in  satellite  net  radiation and  upper  ocean  heating  rates  from  the  current  record. This  is  predominantly  due  to  large  uncertainties  remaining,  in  both  observing  systems,  and  which  needs  to  be  understood,  and  reduced.”

      “There remain substantial issues over balancing the global energy budget: achieving closure (Kevin Trenberth)”

      Here Trenberth is talking like an auditor. Cautious. The budget would balance if not for substantial issues. So, the auditor asks, does he sign off on these statements, or does he go back to work and find what the real statements are supposed to say? Trenberth may have become more certain in the past year since the linked workshop above, but it sounds like what the situation is, is still an open question.

      If the CERES TOA net is correct, that's increasing the odds that the Arctic sea ice will continue to gain area.

      Whether one agrees with me or not, the link is worth a look with many OHC graphs and other information from some of the best minds on the subject.

    4. Ragnaar, surely you've learnt by now to avoid eyeballing and to consider all the information, not just pick bits you think support what you want to believe. This was on page 12 of the slides, together with a bit about CERES:

      >Net planetary imbalance for July 2005-June 2010: 0.58±0.43 Wm-2

      Which is close enough to the energy balance diagram on page 3 of the presentation, which shows TOA imbalance of 0.6 Wm-2.

    5. >Net planetary imbalance for July 2005-June 2010: 0.58±0.43 Wm-2 (looks like 90%)

      The above is a conclusion line. It's mostly based on ARGO data with large error bars. The number on page 3 is 0.6 +- 0.26 Wm-2, I have a preference for the CERES TOA net. It's simpler and it should capture all inputs and outputs. It has its weaknesses. Its calibration for net may be off, but I believe they call it stable.

      “Combined  Satellite  (CERES)  and  in-­‐situ  (Argo)  observations  during the  past  13 years  (Mar00-­‐Feb13)  shows  that  Earth  has  been steadily  accumulating  energy at  the  rate  0.6  ±  0.26  Wm–2  (1σ conf).

      Combined  satellite  and  in-­‐situ  data  show  no  trend  in  TOA  net radiation imbalance  for  1993  –  2013.”

      One sigma as far as I know is 68.2%. If we pushed the above to Two sigma, it might overlap with Wunsch and Heimbach's latest lower number for OHC which is where we've been told about 90% of the heat is.

      So what to make of the above? CERES TOA net may be off. Argo may be off and suffer from limited data that becomes more sparse at depth. So we can look at the cautionary remarks at the link.

    6. Just one question, Ragnaar, before I leave you to your wonderings.

      Are you:

      (a) seriously trying to learn what is happening in regard to climate change or

      (b) are you looking for anything you can find to "prove" it either has stopped or will stop soon or an ice age will cometh or some other idea you want to prove.

      I confess that none of your posts suggest you are seriously wanting to learn about climate. It strikes me that you are just using this blog as somewhere to post your random wonderings, and that you've already made up your mind that the world is about to cool down one day soon.

      Thanks. Just answer (a) or (b) will do.

    7. a) I am. I was looking at the Atlantic/Arctic halocline last night. Yes it is related to the stadium wave. I think I get some of the basics of this recent paper and their logic: W. Llovel, J. K.Willis, F.W. Landererand and I. Fukumori. I do try do that with maybe a paper a week. Get the point and methods of them. I've spend some time trying understand Ghil. In a picture, something like this:
      Some say a Z or S curve that can relate to tipping points and sensitivity. Ghil has a similar graph that uses temperatures and a control variable.
      b) I don't know if the the warming has stopped? I think we are looking at 0.1 C per decade. The climate system is an interesting beast. Maybe that it has material non-linear properties that should be taken into account. That there's more to it than a trend line.
      I appreciate your patience Sou. Maybe I should give this thread a rest.


Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL. Details here.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.