Dim Sun Anyone?

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun May 31, 2009 3:38 am

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/009807.html

But the final word goes to the IPCC, which plans on revising its outlooks. "Someone, somewhere, is not telling the truth ... either that, or we just don't know as much about the climate as we thought," said IPCC head, Rajendra Pachauri's. He added, that since he believes in reincarnation, he intends on pursuing the matter even into another life.

I vote for both.

Now if he would come out and say something like: "We have imputed to CO2 effects actually caused in part by PDO/ENSO." I would start to have some trust in the models.

What we get is on the order of - the ocean currents are causing temporary cooling and once that is over things will get worse. Much worse. And you are all going to have to give up your power plants, modern agriculture, and autos. We could just plant trees which cool the planet and would absorb CO2 long enough for scientists to find economical ways to end our dependence on carbon fuels, but we couldn't reduce the earth's population near fast enough that way.

Lebensraum updated by 80 years. New methods new rationales same old results. Skulls piled to the heavens. Because we are running out of...............

vankirkc · Post by **vankirkc** » Sun May 31, 2009 6:33 am

When the only active thread on a polywell discussion forum debates the merits of global warming science, you can infer that interest in polywell technology is waning.

My question is why that would be. Has some credible breakthrough occurred that rendered the idea infeasible, or is it the lack of visible progress from the government funded effort?

I suppose it can't help that the forum has degenerated into side discussions and (mostly angry) political ramblings. It probably would be better to constrain the Talk-Polywell site to discussions of polywell technology, and leave these other debates to forums that they are better aligned with.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun May 31, 2009 6:45 am

vankirkc wrote:When the only active thread on a polywell discussion forum debates the merits of global warming science, you can infer that interest in polywell technology is waning.

My question is why that would be. Has some credible breakthrough occurred that rendered the idea infeasible, or is it the lack of visible progress from the government funded effort?

I suppose it can't help that the forum has degenerated into side discussions and (mostly angry) political ramblings. It probably would be better to constrain the Talk-Polywell site to discussions of polywell technology, and leave these other debates to forums that they are better aligned with.

It is science. It is a discussion of how big government/big science works. Since Polywell is currently a government project I think it is germane.

The regulars have thrashed out Polywell as far as you can go without data. If you are new here start asking questions. Better yet any bright ideas?

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Sun May 31, 2009 1:03 pm

When the only active thread on a polywell discussion forum debates the merits of global warming science

Other good thread (not got as many postings as it should have):

Others and Art Carlson great posting of paper on FRC collider fusion. In more tech detail & looking more plausible than I had seen before:
http://fusion.gat.com/tap/community/ct/ ... eactor.pdf
Thread: viewtopic.php?t=1253

The point about polywell is that there will be really interesting (& lets hope really exciting) news eventually - maybe in two years. And there is lots of interesting theory & design talk. But this forum is for talking about random things. You want to talk about what interests you - start a thread? And you don't need to read this GW thread.

Best wishes, Tom

vankirkc · Post by **vankirkc** » Sun May 31, 2009 4:58 pm

Thank you for the links. I'm not really new as such to the forums. I've been lurking silently for quite some time now. What's new is the posting account.

Here's the issue I have with having a GW debate here on this site.

First, what are potential motivators for investment in Polywell technology right now? I would argue that they are primarily a) because the GW story is true, and as a means of weaning us off carbon producing fuels, or b) GW is not true, but we're nearing peak oil, and must find a replacement for oil.

I am not arguing that GW is or is not real. Nor am I suggesting that peak oil is just around the corner. But I would argue that these two propositions are the chief motivators for commercial investment in this technology right now.

So let's say someone with an intent to invest in Polywell technology comes to the site, and happens on the latest posts...in the general section, that address global warming. This person perhaps believes all of the rhetoric regarding the GW storyline, and this is driving their interest in Polywell technology. Finding a serious debate of the merits of GW could bring them to two conclusions a) the contributors here are suspect because they do not believe in scientific consensus behind the GW story, or b) that the GW story, their main motivation for investment, is false which lessens their motivation to get involved with a risky Polywell project.

The political discussions are also problematic, because it may be an angelic Democrat, who believes that Obama is going to change the world, who is willing to invest cash into the Polywell technology. Would they feel comfortable giving that money to someone who is clearly and vehemently opposed to Democrats and their policies? Again, this is putting aside entirely the question of whether the Democrats or their policies are problematic...it's just a turn off to people who do not share your point of view, and is beside the point of a Polywell discussion.

So I think the best policy is simply not to mention these other things here. There are plenty of forums on the web discussing global warming and politics, but only this forum debates Polywell technology (as far as I know).

Anyway, those are my two cents. I won't say anything more about it, and apologies if I offended anyone in saying them.

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Sun May 31, 2009 7:07 pm

Thanks Vankirkc,

I had absolutely not considered that aspect of posting here.

I don't think any investor would be put off by the various topics discussed here - if they were I would be nervous about the threads on cold fusion, eestor, blacklight power, etc. But maybe I am wrong.

None of this stuff gets in away of the 'real' sub-forums here - theory, design. I suppose news, which is also 'real' has some pretty wahcky stuff posted sometimes.

I just think censorship of anything likely to offend would lead to zero postings or bland banalities.

Tom

PS - I agree it is not helpful to have shouting matches but I think the GW debate has stayed just this side of a shouting match. Though I admit it is mostly sustained by me since the other pro-AGW supporters (perhaps rightly) don't want to post! But as an exploration of science, and how to understand it, it is a fascinating debate at many levels.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 5:48 am

My feeling is that I would prefer to hire people who are unafraid to speak their minds no matter what position they hold because you will get honest answers from such people when you ask the hard engineering and science questions. They may be mistaken (as I may very well be) but the disagreements can be openly discussed.

What you don't want are people who hide their positions. That is common wisdom nowadays in aircraft cockpits. If even the stewardess has an operational question she is not to defer to authority. The captain may have the final say but other inputs are welcome. In fact the new rules require them to speak up and the captain to listen.

If a company is deterred by folks openly speaking their minds they reduce their chances of success.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:16 am

http://www.nzcpr.com/guest147.htm

In 1996 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second Assessment Report was released, and I was listed as one of approximately 3000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernable human influence on climate.

I was an invited reviewer for a chapter dealing with the economic impact of sea level rise on small island nations. In keeping with IPCC procedures, the chapter was written and reviewed in isolation from the rest of the report, and I had no input into the process after my review of the chapter draft. I was not asked if I supported the view expressed in my name, and my understanding at the time was that no evidence of a discernable human influence on global climate existed.

The chapter I reviewed dealt primarily with the economic consequences of an assumed sea level rise of 1 m causing extensive inundation. My response was that I could not comment on the economic analysis, however, I disagreed with the initial assumptions, particularly the assumed sea level rise in the stated time period. Further, there was good evidence at the time that sea level rise would not necessarily result in flooding of small island nations, because natural processes on coral atolls were likely to raise island levels.

The IPCC Second Assessment Report assessed sea level rise by AD 2100 as being in the range 0.20-0.86 m, with a most likely value of 0.49 m (less than half the rate assumed for the economic analysis). Subsequent research has demonstrated that coral atolls and associated islands are likely to increase in elevation as sea level rises. Hence, the assumptions were invalid, and I was convinced that IPCC projections were unrealistic and exaggerated the problem.

Following the release of IPCC Second Assessment Report I also co-authored the sea level rise section of the New Zealand impact report, and same section for a revised report following the release of IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001). The third report followed the trend of decreasing sea level rise projections evident in sea level rise literature, with a most likely projection of 0.44 m. However, some extreme scenarios were added at a late stage of the review process to give a wider range of projections from 0.09-0.88 m. There was little support in the literature for these extremes, and my view was that a range of 0.31-0.49 m was more reasonable. I also expected future projections to be lower.

No fraud there. The IPCC just makes sh*t up. Which is not the same as fraud. Not at all. It would be really unfortunate if the IPCC was being dishonest. Lucky for us there is no chance of that. After all would the UN lie to us? That is as likely as them putting Cuba on the human rights commission.

And as was pointed out a continental rebound correction was added making the sea level rise projections with respect to continents worse than the actual expectations.

No bias there.

Tom,

Is it becoming clear to you that the IPCC has an agenda? That the governments who chose which scientist to send to the IPCC may also have an agenda that would bias the results.

Maybe that bias would explain the continued use of the crockey stick despite being discredited?

Now it is entirely possible that I'm in error and events will show that I have been fooled. But I can say one thing with confidence. The process in Climate Science is not clean. Look at the trouble Svensmark had getting published. That is not right. And when I can point to a number of such incidents continuing to this day one has to wonder. If the warmist scientists are so sure, what are they afraid of?

I'll say this. If Polywell turns out to be a dead end I'm going to have a good cry (It was FUN being involved, I'm sad that it didn't work out) and get on with getting the word out: I was mistaken. I had hopes that were ultimately unrealizable. That is the honest thing to do and I'm prepared to look like a fool.

But you know - lots of people are invested in their image and being foolish doesn't fit. And they will do anything to stave off the day of reckoning. It is human nature. Con men depend on it. Fascinating.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:08 am

I should have read the whole paper. I missed a big one.

http://www.nzcpr.com/guest147.htm

After 2001, published studies continued to project lower global sea level rises over the 21st Century, and several reported a slowing of the rate of rise during the 20th Century. Shortly before the IPCC Assessment Report 4 was published I undertook a literature review of all sea level studies, which: projected lower levels than the IPCC Third Assessment Report review; indicated a slowing of the rate of sea level rise; emphasised the role of decadal scale fluctuations; and there was concern about the discrepancy between satellite and tide gauge sea level measurements. It was recognised that, although satellite sensing gives a better overall measurement of global sea level, satellites reported twice the rate of sea level rise being measured at the coast. It was evident that satellite data could not be combined with tide gauge data.

The IPCC Assessment Report 4 report emphasises a single paper, which was not available when I conducted my review, which spliced the satellite data onto the tide gauge data to “find” acceleration in sea level rise over the period of satellite measurement. This is being used to imply that global sea level rise is accelerating due to global warming (now renamed Climate Change). The satellite data only covered the period of increasing sea level associated with decadal cycles, and the known discrepancy between satellite trends and tide gauge trends was not corrected for. This is poor science comparable to the splicing of proxy and instrument data in the infamous Hockey Stick graph, and the splicing of ice core and instrumental CO2 measurements to exaggerate the changes.

Starting to see a pattern here Tom?

What has sea level actually done so far this century? There have been large regional variations, but the global rate has slowed and is currently negative, consistent with measured ocean cooling. Claims to the contrary are exaggerations and not realistic.

No wonder people are losing faith.

Now of course the falling ocean levels may just be an artifact of PDO/ENSO. Why isn't the IPCC being honest and reporting it? Has any paper tried to correlate the fall with the cooling ocean data to see if the corrections to the swimming ocean measurement system is in the ball park?

Has there been a paper out that tries to find why the satellite and tidal gauge measurements differ? Something is fishy.

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:44 am

Simon -

(1) Please note that the IPCC latest report suggests a smaller sea-level rise than previously. It seems that teh IPCC is paying attention to the science and correcting what needs to be corrected.

(2) The linkage between sea level rise and global temperature is complex. For example, note the idea floated on a AGW skeptical web site that in fact increases in global temperature will increase solid H2O precipitation in the antarctic and that this effect will dwarf teh corresponding melting, thereby taking water out of the seas (and also off floating ice-caps).

I have no idea whether this is plausible or not - but it shows how by making casual but plausible assumptions you can draw almost any conclusion.

As before: if you criticise the GCM community for making casual but plausible assumptions I listen, and want to find the papers that demonstrate this, and see what otehrs say about them. But if you quote blogs doing exactly that thing I have little sympathy.

In your comment you suppose that IPCC is responsible for a lack of scientific papers refuting what you and various blogs believe to be "obviously" bad science. IPCC does not do research, or publish papers. It reviews the research that others do.

Tom

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:13 pm

tomclarke wrote:Simon -

(1) Please note that the IPCC latest report suggests a smaller sea-level rise than previously. It seems that teh IPCC is paying attention to the science and correcting what needs to be corrected.

(2) The linkage between sea level rise and global temperature is complex. For example, note the idea floated on a AGW skeptical web site that in fact increases in global temperature will increase solid H2O precipitation in the antarctic and that this effect will dwarf teh corresponding melting, thereby taking water out of the seas (and also off floating ice-caps).

I have no idea whether this is plausible or not - but it shows how by making casual but plausible assumptions you can draw almost any conclusion.

As before: if you criticise the GCM community for making casual but plausible assumptions I listen, and want to find the papers that demonstrate this, and see what otehrs say about them. But if you quote blogs doing exactly that thing I have little sympathy.

In your comment you suppose that IPCC is responsible for a lack of scientific papers refuting what you and various blogs believe to be "obviously" bad science. IPCC does not do research, or publish papers. It reviews the research that others do.

Tom

Tom,

The problem with your commendable idea is that the warmists control the peer review making it hard for contrary ideas to get published. The Svensmark case is emblematic.

I am so sorry that you can only accept criticism from qualified critics. My attitude is: if the floor sweeper points out an error I am going to listen. Just as airline pilots are now required to listen to any one who points out a potential error. Suppose I, as an engineer of aircraft systems see something? Should the pilot ignore me because I am not part of the flight crew and fully qualified. It is an absurd idea.

And what about me? Is my opinion about electronics worthless because I have no degree? All my working career I was "unqualified" for the positions I held had I wanted to be an employee. Absurd. Obviously I would have no standing when it comes to peer review due to my lack of qualifications. Absurd. Is Bill Gates unqualified to write software because he flunked out of college? Absurd. This slavish adherence to credentialism is a blot on our enterprise. Any enterprise that adheres to it is suspect. The amateur is often the first to see the Emperor has no clothes and can speak first because he is not constrained by collegiality. Very valuable.

I do not believe in priesthoods.

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:13 pm

Sea Level.

The land-based sea gauges are problematic for many reasons. So let us see whether criticism of the satellite data is justified.

I have heard worries that:
(1) the calibration is rigged
(2) the stated error bars are wrong.

First, here is an overview of current sea-level change, possible causes, etc.
http://earth.esa.int/workshops/venice06 ... nice06.pdf

second, here is a detailed analysis of the satellite data and calibration methods, with details of how the errors are calculated.

Leuliette, Eric W., Nerem, R. Steven and Mitchum, Gary T.(2004)'Calibration of TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason
Altimeter Data to Construct a Continuous Record of Mean Sea Level Change',Marine Geodesy,27:1,79 — 94

Open access copy:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/MG_Leuliette2004.pdf

Is this bad science? if so which bit?

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:01 pm

First paper:

1. Biased sampling. Satellites have this problem because they do not simultaneously sample the oceans. The samples are sequential.

2. From the pdf: Changes in instrumentation and station location introduce biases, especially in systems not specifically designed for long term climate modeling.

Well I agree with that. That would make the whole temp record (land and sea) before the advent of satellite monitoring suspect. Given that there is only 30 years of satellite data no firm conclusions can be obtained about climate changes since only 1/2 of the PDO cycle has been monitored and it may very well be that the PDO/ENSO has been aliased into the CO2 "effect".

I am unaware of any effort to make such a correction. Since d/dt effects may affect the numbers, rising edges should be compared to rising edges etc. Or else peak to peak. The problem of noise is exacerbated in such circumstances however. Making two or three cycles a better gauge. In another 100 or 200 years we may know something.

====

Another point is the claimed accuracy of 1.3 mm in 1,330 km seems beyond reason. That is 1 part in 1E9. Including clock variation, atmospheric variation, orbital variation, etc. Not to mention variation in reflectivity which will affect lock. Since an FM system will lock on the stronger of two signals with as little as 1 db difference between them the results could be rather twitchy unless the lock was looser (adding to the error band). Or it could be very sea state sensitive (adding to the error band).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOPEX/Poseidon

The claim from the Wiki is that the satellite position can be measured to within 2 cm. That puts a lower bound on the error. To claim sea surface height measurements over a track that varies in time and space to 1.3 mm is frankly not credible.

===Now they go on further to state that in "average sea state" (could they provide a number? Sea states have numbers.) The accuracy is 4.2 cm to 1 sigma. Statistically a significant variation would need to be 2 sigma. That would be 8.4 cm. They claim to be able to reduce the error to 2.5 cm with ground processing (5 cm at 2 sigma) - note wiki says 3.3 cm. This does not account for wind. Variations in ocean currents. Track variations. Decadal variations (such as PDO/ENSO) And the fact that the measurement although area averaged over a 300 mi diameter circle do not measure a number of spots on the ocean simultaneously. etc. Also note that the reported rise is 3.0 mm a year which is just at the edge of the 2 sigma (significant) claimed error band. Which means the rate could be double what is reported or zero.

Which has been claimed in a sceptic paper I consider credible. I believe I left a link to it some where above. That would be the Swedish Prof. whose name begins with an M.

Also note that they go to the tidal gauge network for drift calibration of the atmospheric compensator. The drift is claimed to be 1.2 mm a year for the 5 years before 1997. That would be .6 cm. That is statistically undetectable. They also do not give the direction of the drift so it is possible to evaluate the direction of possible bias if their drift rate is in error. Then they state that after 1997 the drift rate jumps to 5.2 mm a year. That is detectable over a 10 year period. But again they do not give the direction of the correction in order to evaluate what it is doing to sea levels if the correction is in error. Shoddy.

Now Tom. You could probably do as well or better if you put your QC inspector hat on. Give it the design review treatment for medical, nuclear, or aircraft eqpt. Rip it apart.

I can tell you this. That paper in so far as I have read it would Never, ever, pass a FAA/Medical eqpt. review.

I don't have time right now to go further, but so far I am not impressed.

I'll get to the second paper later.

Glaring piece of missing data in the first page of the second paper. The tidal gauges show 1.8 mm a year over a century. And the satellite shows 3.3 mm during its time in orbit - what were the tidal gauges showing during the satellite period in orbit and if there is a difference what is the cause? The paper needs two charts. They have only one. The critique the paper I posted above made.

Can you read anything about this stuff with a sceptic eye Tom?

If the tidal gauges show the same rate of change as before (accounting for seasonal and decadal variations) and the satellite record is more accurate then we can reasonably assume that the tidal gauges for the past century need a correction by 2X (roughly). The splicing of two different measurement methods is in fact an error. As the paper I posted suggests.

I'm not interested in carrying this further without better data.

BTW the satellite data shows no correction for PDO/ENSO. i.e. decadal variations.

Another bit of crockery to throw at the masses. I am not saying that the numbers in the two papers are wrong. I'm saying: case not proved.

Color me unimpressed.

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 6:16 pm

Simon -

The first paper clearly references the second as source of altimetry data corrections etc. that is why I included it. And ALL of you speculations relate to specific facts dealt with in the second paper!

satellite record not sufficient - that is a separate argument - there is enough satellite record, if we trust it, to knock on the head ideas about no change in sea-level.

As for multi-decadal factors influencing this - let us stay with one argument at a time. The topic for this week is whether Morner - quoted so comprehensively by the skeptics - is exposing a conspiracy of "bad science" saying the sea level is increasing and summarised by IPCC AR4.

It is an old trick (characteristic of politicians) to hop from one argument to another like a cat on a hot tin roof so preventing any effective rebuttal.

These papers are written by scientists wanting to establish data. Explaining it is something they speculate about but cannot of course do definitively. I'll get back to you re splicing the MSGL data to the altimeter data when we have established whether the altimeter data is high qiality (as the team producing it seem to think). Their calculations are quite transparent.

Tom

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 6:28 pm

Simon -

I am following your reqirement of extreme skepticism of any published data. That certainly includes quotes and partial triuths published on blogs.

No preisthood. I will happily read any paper which is a serious attempt to address the issues, detailed, careful, with good references that I can check. It will admittedly help if somone has criticised it. So anyone who writes a serious paper I am sure can find a GW-skeptical website to publicise it independent of the peer review system. I will accept such papers but we may find the quality is less good than for published work.

There may be a conspiracy. It did not prevent Morner's publication and his paper appears somewhat flawed from the comments and comments on comments after it, so might have had a rough ride.

Tom