tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post6616762546108793627..comments2023-06-07T09:04:36.390-04:00Comments on More Grumbine Science: Climate -- cycles 1Robert Grumbinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10783453972811796911noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-6209431302036686122010-08-19T21:21:58.241-04:002010-08-19T21:21:58.241-04:00trakar:
The only red I see is in the Ross and Wedd...trakar:<br />The only red I see is in the Ross and Weddell seas, Antarctica, and in Siberia. New Mexico and Mexico are far to the low end of annual cycle amplitude.Robert Grumbinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10783453972811796911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-43600642988404147502010-08-19T21:00:10.350-04:002010-08-19T21:00:10.350-04:00jacob:
Much better figure!
Where to go from here ...jacob:<br />Much better figure!<br /><br />Where to go from here ... pretty much the question I was working with in the previous answer. If you'd like to work with numbers, I can help you with the ones I made for the size of the annual cycle and such. Just write me at bobg AT radix dot net.<br /><br />Bayesian:<br />I guess my days looking at ice ages have left me a little jaded. Tiny wiggles on the curves, like 1998 vs. 2005 vs. 2010, don't impress me. 2010 may be warmer than 1998, but it tells us little more than the converse answer. On the other hand, 1998 was during a massive El-Nino and extremely active sun, while 2010 includes a marginal El Nino (perhaps coming to a cool, La Nina phase) and a marginally active sun. For 2010 to be 'in the running' is a bit surprising, as the weather effects that normally matter are not in its favor.<br /><br />The climate trend, 20-30 years, remains positive, and will pretty much regardless of what happens this year. Climate is (still) warming. (As you know, but I think the 20-30 year business can do with some repetition.)Robert Grumbinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10783453972811796911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-30289178996289224132010-08-15T18:11:49.380-04:002010-08-15T18:11:49.380-04:00So far, 2010 is the world's hottest year on re...<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/13/AR2010081306090.html" rel="nofollow">So far, 2010 is the world's hottest year on record, NOAA data show</a><br /><br />Is the statistical outlier of 1998, so popular amongst climate change denialists, about to be sunk?Bayesian Bouffant, FCDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-25027828620004572212010-08-14T05:22:10.651-04:002010-08-14T05:22:10.651-04:00Is that a red streak through New Mexico as well?Is that a red streak through New Mexico as well?Trakarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-31747609808766895552010-08-09T19:51:17.667-04:002010-08-09T19:51:17.667-04:00this is a updated graph I'll try and answer yo...this is a updated graph I'll try and answer your questions not sure about the<br />guest post, But THANKYOU for noticing<br /><br />http://www.flickr.com/photos/52782029@N06/4877550420/<br /><br />ps: this time I used panoply to create the graph looking at the old code it was year to year NOT month to month, I was comparing gistemp to model E output and compressing to year to year was the easiest way I could think of<br />again Thankyoujacob lnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-9386947246385347592010-08-08T20:50:21.046-04:002010-08-08T20:50:21.046-04:00S2:
Altitude tends to go the other way -- greater ...S2:<br />Altitude tends to go the other way -- greater variability at higher elevations. Hence your observation of the Gobi. So probably not the source of the ice shelf edge cycle amplitude. (Plus Brooks found elevation to be significant in his paper). My bet is the sea ice.<br /><br />You're right about the equatorial semi-annual cycle. It is indeed large compared to the annual cycle. That was one of my other unshown figures -- divide the semi-annual cycle amplitude by the annual cycle. <br /><br />The reason you don't see it in my plots is that the tropics have small cycle amplitudes compared to the rest of the globe. This is an example of what I mentioned to jacob where graphics can hide interesting information. The larger amplitudes elsewhere swamp the interesting tropical behavior.Robert Grumbinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10783453972811796911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-33490720880567468302010-08-08T10:57:20.967-04:002010-08-08T10:57:20.967-04:00"More interesting, the largest annual cycles ..."More interesting, the largest annual cycles in the Antarctic are seen at the edge of the Ross Ice Shelf and the Filchner-Ronne ice shelf (Weddell Sea). "<br /><br />Altitude? Antarctica is generally pretty high, the Ross & the Ronne shelves are at a much lower elevation.<br /><br />I am not sure how well that would work for Mongolia/Siberia, though. The Gobi desert is quite high, but there are some big mountain ranges to it's north.<br /><br />i am intrigued by the semi-annual cycles - I would expect to see solar-driven cycles at the equator, since the sun crosses it twice a year - but not at the poles. Some kind of atmospheric effect driven by tropical insolation?S2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-48509587557712155142010-08-07T15:01:27.824-04:002010-08-07T15:01:27.824-04:00jacob:
"Where do we go from here?" is on...jacob:<br />"Where do we go from here?" is one of the great questions for science. Sometimes the answer is 'nowhere', and sometimes the answer turns out to be spectacular (invent quantum mechanics, general relativity, ...).<br /><br />I don't know the answer here. I'll suggest a few things (even without answers, I can have ideas). One thing is to go back to what prompted you to look at the standard deviation of the monthly temperatures in the first place. I assume it was a question about some part of how climate works.<br /><br />In looking at my figure for the annual cycle, then, you've added a second chunk of information. The first general rule I have is that if I get a second chunk of information, I try to see what's similar, and what's different, as compared to my first chunk.<br /><br />The (to my eyes) first major similarity is that areas with high annual cycles also usually have large standard deviations. First points for further research are whether this is always true, how true is it (how strong is the correlation), and why should there be any connection at all? For some of these, you'll need my numbers for the size of the annual cycle, which I'll be happy to send you.<br /><br />The first major difference is that the El Nino region shows up as an area of large standard deviation, but has a very low annual cycle. Why does the El Nino region break our previous rule? If it's broken in the El Nino region, are there any other regions that violate it? -- While eyeball inspection of plots is often a good way to start, plots can hide as much as they show, which might include other areas that violate the rule. Again, you'd want to get in to the numbers.<br /><br />So I'll suggest a couple things, and make an offer. On the suggestions: take a little time to develop your list of questions, include the ones I suggest above if you like any of them, but add another dozen or two of your own. Then think some about how you could use the kinds of data you have available to answer the questions -- as a means of selecting which questions to pursue most seriously. The other side, maybe hold off on pursuing until after you've wrestled with the data some, is to see what has already been learned in the research literature. The reason for some data-wrestling first is that I find it helpful to spend some time trying to answer my questions before seeing how others reached their answer. I understand their work better if I've tried it some myself. Scholar.google.com can be a very helpful source if you don't have great library resources right at hand (I don't). One downside, as well as suggestion, is that for the kind of question I was mentioning, the best literature to look at was probably written before 1980 or so -- before global satellite networks and the rise of computers powerful enough to make much of life easy. Scientists were trying to extract the most possible out of the data, and being smart folks, managed to do things much earlier than you might think (hence my reference to Brooks, 1917!).<br /><br />This last doesn't mean that it's worthless to work on the numbers yourself. First, if your goal is understanding, your work will certainly help you to that understanding. Second, even if the initial science was done a long time ago, you have far more data and computational resources available to you than anybody in the world had until extremely recently. That, plus a good question to answer, makes for good science.<br /><br />It also leads to my offer: If you pursue this, I'll be happy to post your results as a guest post on the blog here. Whatever question you settle on as most interesting to you, is probably interesting to me and others, so I'd like to see the answer. And how you go about pursuing the answer will be interesting to readers here in the sense of my 'doing science' label.Robert Grumbinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10783453972811796911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-16835644085200518762010-08-07T10:06:07.282-04:002010-08-07T10:06:07.282-04:00Penguindreams: yes it should be standard deviation...Penguindreams: yes it should be standard deviation not derivative.<br />I'm still playing around and the left hand side is 180w.<br />The bright blue in the tropical pacific is around the el-nino region.<br />I'm just not sure where to go from here?<br />I definitely could add labels.<br />Thanks for noticing jacobljacob lnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-4691152627598093152010-08-05T19:06:53.702-04:002010-08-05T19:06:53.702-04:00arthur:
I knew ahead of time what the annual cycle...arthur:<br />I knew ahead of time what the annual cycle looked like. And a fair notion of the 2 cycles per year, since I'd read van Loon 25 or so years ago. The 3 cycles per year was a surprise and makes me want to go back and compute 4 cycles per year as well. For my other project, I didn't need it. But, after we kick it around a little, I'll go back.<br /><br />jacob:<br />I think you mean standard deviation.<br /><br />It is indeed another interesting figure, though their color bar isn't very good. Also the lack of labels for latitude-longitude. If I'm guessing correctly, the left hand side is at 180 W, North and South America towards the left hand side of the figure.<br /><br />What you have there is an interesting figure to compare with the annual cycle figure. Since you're looking at anomalies, the annual cycle has been removed. You're looking at how much variation there is away from the standard annual cycle. <br /><br />The interesting parts (to me) are<br />a) Areas with large annual cycle also have large variability. Why would this be true?<br />b) ... except for the tropical Pacific ocean. Do we know of a climate process that occurs in that part of the world?Robert Grumbinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10783453972811796911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-17914667666503350242010-08-05T16:49:14.530-04:002010-08-05T16:49:14.530-04:00a couple of months ago I tried plotting
the standa...a couple of months ago I tried plotting<br />the standard derivative of the past 130 years(1880-2009+) of monthly anomalies.<br />I created it from the data created from NASA's gistemp program.<br />any thoughts? <br /><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/52782029@N06/4863665829/" title="outbluesd by jacob_inmt47, on Flickr" rel="nofollow">image</a>jacob lnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-90258574055170212012010-08-05T14:20:54.040-04:002010-08-05T14:20:54.040-04:00This was a really nice overview, I had no idea the...This was a really nice overview, I had no idea there were such strong harmonics that were isolated in such a way. Also it illuminates a discussion I had on "deltoid" a few weeks ago about the magnitude of the annual cycle over the oceans. Thanks for this!Arthurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06249922708053689717noreply@blogger.com