Dim Sun Anyone?

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:10 pm

I'm skeptical you'll do more than dismiss any anti-AGW study with a weak RealClimate-provided argument, as with the forecasting scientists' study which utterly demolishes AGW as a basis for the policies being discussed and is more than sufficient to rebut the entire theory on its own, proponents' risibly irrelevant cries of "but our models aren't stochastic!" notwithstanding.

Shrug. Few people are as open-minded or as rational as they like to think. Our brains just aren't wired for it. It's natural to try to confirm our biases, and to defend a theory once we accept it. But that's not how science works.

Heh, that forecasting scientists' study is actually now the #1 result for the phrase "no scientific basis." I think people have been paying attention.

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:31 pm

Heh, this is good:

In a wonderful gesture of public spiritedness, seven academics who include three lead authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and a former director of the World Climate Research Program wrote to Australian power generating companies on April 29 instructing them to cease and desist creating electricity from coal.

In their final paragraph, they state with breathtaking arrogance: "The unfortunate reality is that genuine action on climate change will require the existing coal-fired power stations to cease operating in the near future.

Just apolitical scientists generating objective data, no activist agenda here.

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:37 pm

TallDave -

IPCC review the lierature, they do not generate data. And the review is commissioned and seen by politicians, so it is politically sensitive. But their breif (unless you believe onspiracy theories) is to evaluate the science and advise, not to push one side or the other.

Given the strength of uncritical, uncriticised, anti-AGW blog comment it is not surprising if they begin to feel polarised - the science has been clear for a long time but the critics recycle incorrect and ably refuted arguments, with great support in the popular media.

I don't approve of it, however. You don't beat cheats by cheating yourself. And simplification of these issues is a type of cheating. Tom

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:49 pm

TallDave wrote:I'm skeptical you'll do more than dismiss any anti-AGW study with a weak RealClimate-provided argument

Well, I have challenged Simon to substantiate his string of skeptical arguments based on a guy called Morner.

I am not going near RealClimate on the issue. I am following the trail of Morner's paper, the comments on it, Morner's comments on the comments. And I am now looking at what the experts say about the sea-level record, what data they quote. We have got down to the science of how satellite altimetry is calibrated, what are the error bars, how are they generated.

This is real science but in a small enough area that anyone with decent maths and some time can follow it.

Simon believes the group processing the satelite data are somehow influenced by a pro-AGW conspiracy and misrepresent the data. Maybe. Their paper describing in detail how they process the satellite data and how they calculate the error bars is available. I am waiting for Simon or one of his anti-AGW websites to tell me what is wrong with it.

So far Simon is concerned that the 100 year record which merges tidal gauge and satellite data may be flakey. But all our disputes relate to the last 15 years of record for which the satellite data is available. Most people seem to think the satellite data is more reliable than the tidal gauge data. So let us see.

We don't need to believe anything we read in blogs on this issue, pro or anti - we can look at the published data and check on references where we suspect any link in this process.

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:03 pm

I see you're still hiding from ackowledging the correctness of the forecasting scientists' study or an answer on what, if any, data would falsify global warming for you.

The fact apparently nothing would falsify AGW for you tends to prove my point global warming is more of a pseudo-religious belief than a scientific proposition. You also don't seem to see any problem with believing AGW is simultaneously too uncertain to be falsifiable in any reasonable time frame and 90% certain. Ah, the marvel of human rationalizations.

But their breif (unless you believe onspiracy theories) is to evaluate the science and advise, not to push one side or the other.

Is it still a "conspiracy theory" when IPCC members openly engage in activism? I guess we're supposed to believe their IPCC work is entirely free of any bias or prejudice regarding the issues on which they're out there pushing a radical agenda. Maybe pigs fly, too.

I'm trying to think how they could be less objective if they were really trying to be as unobjective as possible. I guess they could burn down the Exxon/Mobil offices.

the science has been clear for a long time

Yes it has, and it clearly says most AGW claims are bunk, as 31,000 scientists have attested with their signatures. But much of the pro-AGW crowd doesn't care about the science except as a prop for their environmental crusade, while the rest don't seem to understand how science works. So we get more alarmist claims and arrogant dismissals of real science.

with great support in the popular media.

Do you really want to compare how much coverage pro-AGW viewpoints get versus anti-AGW? I'd say it's easily the best-publicized pseudo-scientific apocalyptic scaremongering in history.

Given how easily AGW claims have been debunked here, it's not surprising Al Gore refuses to debate anyone.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Jun 02, 2009 12:31 am

We have got down to the science of how satellite altimetry is calibrated,

We do know for sure that they are presenting the data as if in a vacuum.

They leave out known decadal oscillations and it appears that they give no information on how the calibrations against tidal stations are done along with a historical record of those stations. Of course I may have missed such offerings in the first paper as I've not read it all, having gotten disgusted in the first few pages.

And Tom - would you go to the Catholic Church if you wanted to find out the merits of Buddhism? That is why peer reviewed papers are not a totally sound way of judging climate science. The occasional paper poking holes in the consensus does sneak through after much travail (Svensmark, McIntyre, McKitrick) but it is a hard road for those not Members of the Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming Hysteria. As an occasional visitor to the church I must say the services are entertaining. But their "repent - the end is nigh" message is shopworn and rather fantastic. Good for whipping up the crowds and filling the collection plate though. And it pays the heating bill for the Church hierarchy at least.

To say: "You have found no peer reviewed article contesting this point or that point" is disingenuous at best. You might as well look for serious criticism of policy of the German regime of 1933 to 1945 in Der Stürmer or Völkischer Beobachter.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Jun 02, 2009 12:54 am

TallDave wrote:Heh, this is good:

In a wonderful gesture of public spiritedness, seven academics who include three lead authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and a former director of the World Climate Research Program wrote to Australian power generating companies on April 29 instructing them to cease and desist creating electricity from coal.

In their final paragraph, they state with breathtaking arrogance: "The unfortunate reality is that genuine action on climate change will require the existing coal-fired power stations to cease operating in the near future.
Just apolitical scientists generating objective data, no activist agenda here.

In other words: "If you will please kill off 5 or 20 million of your customers you can save the world."

I liked the old days better when a handful of virgins or a heifer without blemish (along with a suitable bribe to the priests) was sufficient.

This new religion is getting unsupportably expensive.

Ultimately this will be handled the old fashioned way. Kill the priests. Sack the temple. Start a new religion on the grounds of the old one.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Jun 02, 2009 1:12 am

But all our disputes relate to the last 15 years of record for which the satellite data is available. Most people seem to think the satellite data is more reliable than the tidal gauge data.

So where is the comparison to the TOTAL tidal record that would verify this?

I was SHOCKED that the satellites were calibrated against the tidal stations. Not too bad though if the following record of tidal and satellite concurrent data is presented side by side.

You know we don't measure a ruler for accuracy by comparing it to itself using a transfer standard (such as a caliper or compass). We try for something independent: wavelengths of light.

The error is so obvious as to be laughable if the report wasn't taken seriously due to the inclusion of cm and GHz and km and satellite orbit corrections and interinstrument corrections and GPS corrections until the ordinary bloke has a MEGO event. i.e. "The boffins must have got it right - look at all that complicated stuff in there."

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Jun 02, 2009 1:18 am

Let me add that for all their imperfections the tidal stations do have one important advantage. You can read them all simultaneously and at least in the modern era they haven't moved physically. Although they may have moved some geologically.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Jun 02, 2009 1:23 am

A little humor for the historical record:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=8

Titled: False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al. (1998) reconstruction
Dated: 4 December 2004

That would be the crockey stick.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Jun 02, 2009 1:37 am

IPCC review the lierature, they do not generate data. And the review is commissioned and seen by politicians, so it is politically sensitive. But their breif (unless you believe onspiracy theories) is to evaluate the science and advise, not to push one side or the other.

Tom,

Their brief is to look for man made causes of global warming. Says so in their very own description of what they do. It shows up in who is allowed to do the science papers that are accepted and what the politicians say about the science papers - and you know once the politicians have spoken the scientists are not allowed to correct the politician's published speech when the politicians make pronouncements unsupported by the data.

It is no conspiracy. It is out in the open. Any one who is not blinded by the brilliance of the Emperor's new clothes can see it.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:41 am

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!

Surprisingly Tom I actually read ALL of the second paper. I found the evidence incomplete. I'm sorry I got the order reversed. I'm going to go back and look at it and see if it will answer these questions:

1. How the instrument calibration was done - not details but outline of the method. OK that seems covered.

2. Comparison of the tidal gauge record and the satellite record when both were available. Not done.

3. What was the sign of the drift correction term? Climate science seems awfully loose with signs. Done. No reason given for the jump in drift rate.

4. What other calibration methods (had they been implemented) would give better results. i.e. a series of buoys on the ocean in calm conditions stabilized by inertial navigation and located by GPS. OK they used buoys when available. Good.

5. What is the effect of large grid squares. i.e. inherent averaging over large areas. No mention.

6. What is "the average sea state" referred to? No mention.

7. How is the sea state in the area covered determined? No mention.

8. What is the lock range of the instrument and how does it drift over time and how do variations in lock range affect the instrument? No mention.

9. What is the total path loss and its variation? No mention.

10. What is the sensitivity of the instrument? What is the noise level? No mention.

11. How does signal stength affect errors. No mention.

===

The most glaring error I see is no chart of the tidal gauge historical numbers and the satellite and tidal gauge charts when both were available.

That is essential for splicing the two records.

It would also help in correcting for decadal variations known to exist.

So let me see if I can get to the heart of the matter and something I have been pounding for quite some time.

1. No correction of the AGW CO2 sensitivity for PDO/Enso.
2. No correction of sea level rise for PDO/ENSO.

Looks like a theme to me.

If the tidal gauges and satellite gauges were rising in tandem then we can say almost for sure that the PDO/ENSO and similar effects are biasing the average during the satellite era. Because the tidal gauge era is longer and would tend to average out PDO/ENSO.

A rather elementary error. Which makes one think that the information was left out on purpose since to do what they did they had to have the data.

So we may very well have ANOTHER case of PDO/ENSO alias. Because to my knowledge CO2 sensitivity has NEVER been corrected for it.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:46 am

Let me note that the drift rate error correction if taken to zero would imply falling ocean levels.

The fact that there is no reason given for the drift rate jump is suspicious.

D Tibbets · Post by **D Tibbets** » Tue Jun 02, 2009 7:15 am

Back to the dim Sun, the latest NASA prediction (with admitted uncertainty as to it's accuracy) is for the next solar peak to have ~ 75% of the Sunspots as the last cycle.

http://www.physorg.com/news163083874.html

Dan Tibbets

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Jun 02, 2009 7:24 am

D Tibbets wrote:Back to the dim Sun, the latest NASA prediction (with admitted uncertainty as to it's accuracy) is for the next solar peak to have ~ 75% of the Sunspots as the last cycle.

http://www.physorg.com/news163083874.html

Dan Tibbets

If you enlarge the chart you will see they are already 3 months behind reality which would mean lowering their estimate of the peak, if the historical record of previous long cycle - next cycle low peak trend holds.