AGW Denial, The Greatest Scam in History?

[petros]

My pleasure, Pet. But I didn't see any of those indicating that climate causes nutations. More like the reverse. Please point one out if you saw one that did.

OOPS it was January 8 2006 (not 05) something really really really telling happened.

For your perusal:

Abstract
Atmospheric motions in the retrograde diurnal (S1) band are of interest to a wide community of researchers in earth dynamics and geodesy, due to their potential contribution to the low-frequency motions of the rotation axis known as nutations. Previous studies of these effects have noted an order-of-magnitude discrepancy between estimates of atmosphere-induced nutation based on the torque and angular momentum approaches. In this note, angular momentum budgets computed from NCEP reanalysis data are examined in order to isolate the reasons for this discrepancy, and associated constraints on the atmospheric response to solar diurnal forcing are considered.
1. Introduction
Nutations refer to the low-frequency motions of the solid earth's rotation axis in inertial space. They are primarily forced by gravitational interaction with the moon and sun, and span a period range from the 26 and 41 ky characterizing the precession and obliquity cycles, respectively, to the first few harmonics of the annual cycle. They are thus distinct from the “wobbles” of the earth's rotation pole, which have a low frequency in the terrestrial frame (e.g., the annual and Chandler wobbles with periods of 12 and 14 months, respectively), but appear as quasi-diurnal motions in inertial space. Nutational motions are observed with a very high precision using space geodetic techniques, currently reaching a measurement accuracy in polar positioning of 1 cm or less at the earth's surface. This high level of precision enables constraints to be placed on the interior structure of the earth, through comparisons between observed nutation and the modeled response of the earth system to astronomical forcing (see Mathews et al. 2002).
In the atmosphere, the solar heating generates a pressure wave at the 1-solar-day frequency (S1) and its seasonally modulated sidebands. This wave creates a torque at the earth–atmosphere interface and so changes the angular momentum of both the atmosphere and solid earth. The retrograde component of this wave has a low frequency in the inertial frame, and consequently it creates a slow motion of the earth's rotation axis, which can be interpreted as atmosphere-generated nutation (Yseboodt et al. 2002, and references therein). In this study, we examine constraints that can be placed on the atmosphere's response to the S1 thermal forcing using considerations from its angular momentum budget and its pressure-, gravitation-, and friction-mediated interactions with the earth.

More on how the atmoshpere is a driver of earth nutations:
AMS Journals Online - Atmospheric Contributions to Earth Nutation: Geodetic Constraints and Limitations of the Torque Approach

Exactly. I see plenty of examples using nutations to predict future climate parameters, but none predicting nutations from climate. The lack of a mechanism to explain such an association is a problem

Maybe you need to pull your head out of your ass and look?

 

[Tonington]

Maybe you need to pull your head out of your ass and look?

I have looked.

Now put up or shut up. It should be evident in a scholar search if it's there. It isn't.

Why is it so hard for you to be direct? Cripes. Just explain yourself, it's not that hard. I'm sure you can muster up enough keystrokes to get it out.

 

[petros]

So what is it? Can the atmosphere drive nutational changes. Yes or no? How?

 

[Tonington]

Can you answer questions without using questions? Yes or no? What is the mechanism you think exists for the atmosphere to change the exertion of tidal forces on our planet?

 

[petros]

So what is it? Can the atmosphere drive nutational changes. Yes or no? How?

Yes or no?

 

[AnnaG]

Drive? I didn't see anything about climate driving nutation. I saw some saying it can contribute. But the cause is not climactic.
There's a huge difference between causing and influencing as the media eventually figured out that that's what scientists were saying.
So "yes" to influencing and "no" to causing.

 

[petros]

Excellent AnnaG. Excellent.

Now lets go bigger picture here. What is it that stimulates the atmospheric changes that influence the wobble of the earth which influence climate?

Apparently it's the sun say the articles.

Which of earth's protective systems have had massive changes over the past century and have also reduced influence by 10%? (Hint: It's not man or CO2)

 

[captain morgan]

It is. You can't even admit that we don't require full kit knowledge of a system to delineate cause and effect.

Sure Tonnington, whatever you like.

Interesting though that despite this exchange, you are no where near capable of even assessing what you do not know, you don't even want to consider this question in any way, shape or form. You have put all your eggs in one basket, pointed to a few components and that is your only reality.

I strongly suspect that it has never occurred to you to consider what you (ie the scientific community) actually knows and compare that to the magnitude of the entire system. Doing so may result in your developing an appreciation that we know next to nothing about this system and all of the contributing factors.

Perhaps with this realization, you might not gloss over that lack of knowledge by suggesting that you "don't require full kit" in order to provide meaningful and accurate commentary

You can't even see that the change in temperature of 0.27% compared to a change in atmospheric carbon dioxide of 36% is what is driving the acidification in the ocean. Charles' law is proportional. Henry's law is proportional. One of those proportions has changed by an amount orders of magnitude larger than the other.

... And that change is all attributable to anthro sources?

That is what this is about. You can provide whatever relationships and principles you wish, that's great, I am not (generally) challenging those. They do not tie directly and specifically into identifying anthro sources as the cause.

i asked you about previous episodes in the absence of humanity.. We know the system is not only capable of such, but has expressed this on many occasions, so how is it possible for you to assess causation today, but don't have a clue about past elements, and I do mean specific explanations, not something out of wiki... Something real.


As it stands, you demand that readers take a monumental leap of faith... Sorry, but that ain't good enough.

I'm finished talking science with someone who won't try to understand it. It's an effort in futility on my part. I have no idea what kind of science training you have, but it's clear that it is inadequate for you to speak with such authority on what conditions must be met.

That seems to be your answer whenever the hard questions are asked. If what you seek is to preach to the converted then perhaps you ought to post on greenie websites that aggressively seek to support anything that supports their preconceived views be it accurate or not.

 

[petros]

You can't even see that the change in temperature of 0.27% compared to a change in atmospheric carbon dioxide of 36% is what is driving the acidification in the ocean.

You sure it's not TRILLIONS of tonnes of fertilizer dumped on croplands yearly?

Quoting Tonington
I'm finished talking science with someone who won't try to understand it. It's an effort in futility on my part. I have no idea what kind of science training you have, but it's clear that it is inadequate for you to speak with such authority on what
conditions must be met.

That seems to be your answer whenever the hard questions are asked. If what you seek is to preach to the converted then perhaps you ought to post on greenie websites that aggressively seek to support anything that supports their preconceived views be it accurate or not.

For some strange reason he won't answer my simple yes or no question as to whether the sun and the atmosphere are capable of altering the earth's highly varying nutation cycles.

What is your answer after reading the scientific documentation? Is it a yes or is it a no?

A yes would be agreeing that there is more than just CO2 and man at work and a no would mean a denial of scientific fact.


Tough nut to crack huh Peabody?

What happened to push the nutation cycle of 7.1 years to abruptly be altered to 6.2 years in 2005/06?

More links to something that doesn't exists according to in-house CO2 proponents.

Google

 

[Tonington]

For some strange reason he won't answer my simple yes or no question as to whether the sun and the atmosphere are capable of altering the earth's highly varying nutation cycles.

I said no a few times already. I'm trying to get the information out of you that you think is relevant. If I don't know it, then I don't know it Petros. It's not for a lack of looking either.

Though, at least now you'll say what the mechanism you think is capable of altering the earth's wobble. So, I still maintain that the climate cannot alter the nutation of our planet.

What is the parameter in our atmosphere which changes the nutation of Earth, and is caused by the sun, and how does it change the nutation?

I've searched Web of knowledge, Science Direct, and Google scholar, and I have come up with nothing for climate causing shifts in the nutation.

I don't think the mechanism exists. I may be wrong, and in fact I've asked you repeatedly now for the answer.

For some strange reason, you think I'm going to give you an answer which I don't have, and can't find. So will you answer the call, or respond with more pointless questions? I admit to being entirely ignorant of any climactic change which can cause the nutation of our axis to change.

 

[petros]

I said no a few times already. I'm trying to get the information out of you that you think is relevant. If I don't know it, then I don't know it Petros. It's not for a lack of looking either.

Was it easier to admit " I don't know" than paint yourself into a corner?


No oats for horses that refuse to drink! I'll only lead you to the water. It's up to you to drink to get the reward of oats.

But here you go. I'll be nice:

OATS: Google

 

[captain morgan]

For some strange reason he won't answer my simple yes or no question as to whether the sun and the atmosphere are capable of altering the earth's highly varying nutation cycles.

Lord knows that I've had no success in that area, but clearly, you've been highly effective at illustrating the premise that "we don't know what we don't know".

Good on ya. I'm looking forward to educating myself (albeit on a cursory basis) relative to your offering.

 

[AnnaG]

Excellent AnnaG. Excellent.

Now lets go bigger picture here. What is it that stimulates the atmospheric changes that influence the wobble of the earth which influence climate?

Apparently it's the sun say the articles.

Which of earth's protective systems have had massive changes over the past century and have also reduced influence by 10%? (Hint: It's not man or CO2)

Thank you. But I am trying to keep things clear by being accurate in my comments. I don't say causes when I mean influences. You might try the same.

 

[petros]

I guess that page after page after page of references proving my point only shows he is in denial and it shows that the anthro angle is "wobbly".

There are no other options.

I really really really want to know how C02 shortered the nutation cycle and made the earth stand still in 2005/06.

Thank you. But I am trying to keep things clear by being accurate in my comments. I don't say causes when I mean influences. You might try the same.

I have tried. It 's ineffective. You gotta hit people over the head with a shovel sometimes.

Enjoy reading about the influences of the atmosphere and tides on the earth's rotation and wobble that doesn't exist (without looking).


Like I mentioned earlier. I really really really want to know how CO2 and man are influencing the entire balance of the solar system and made the earth stand still.

 

[AnnaG]

I guess that page after page after page of references proving my point only shows he is in denial and it shows that the anthro angle is "wobbly".

There are no other options.

I really really really want to know how C02 shortered the nutation cycle and made the earth stand still in 2005/06.

I have tried. It 's ineffective. You gotta hit people over the head with a shovel sometimes.

Enjoy reading about the influences of the atmosphere and tides on the earth's rotation and wobble that doesn't exist (without looking).


Like I mentioned earlier. I really really really want to know how CO2 and man are influencing the entire balance of the solar system and made the earth stand still.

wow Major spin.

 

[petros]

You can't spin reality.

 

[Tonington]

OATS: Google

So...where's the climate part? I see plenty of investigations of atmospheric excitation, as well as oceanic pressure waves. I don't see any link to climate. The atmospheric excitation is stochastic. That's a random process, whereas climate is very clearly deterministic, and a long term trend (by definition) that many of those studies say decays the signal.

So again, I don't see how the climate changes the nutation. I see clearly how angular momentum of our atmosphere and oceanic pressure waves can, and that makes perfect sense.

 

[petros]

So...where's the climate part? I see plenty of investigations of atmospheric excitation, as well as oceanic pressure waves. I don't see any link to climate. The atmospheric excitation is stochastic. That's a random process, whereas climate is very clearly deterministic, and a long term trend (by definition) that many of those studies say decays the signal.

So again, I don't see how the climate changes the nutation. I see clearly how angular momentum of our atmosphere and oceanic pressure waves can, and that makes perfect sense.

Yup. But climate is just stastics....so any stastical change changes the whole loop. Right?

Keep trying.

 

[Stretch]

Greenpeace Leader Admits Arctic Ice Exaggeration

 

[Tonington]

Yup. But climate is just stastics....

Yes, that's exactly the point. Climate is the average weather over thirty years. Any climate impacts that may alter atmospheric pressure, or ocean pressure waves, are going to be...deterministic. Weather impacts are stochastic. Climate is not.

These studies are clearly finding stochastic variations. So there is an equal chance that the next data point in your time series will be +1 or -1. That doesn't apply to climate.

You're conflating weather with climate.