I agree with Mosh.
If they were the same distance from the sun and remained at the same orbit, which is accurately known to be true, then after 100 years timespan, the average temperature of the two bodies would be nearly the same. That is energy balance for you, and wing-flapping butterfly chaos has nothing to do with the outcome on that time and energy scale and those initial and boundary conditions.
Before disastrous global warming Hansen was predicting disastrous global cooling. But, there’s more money in disastrous global warming. Follow the money.
You are still missing the point.
Even the enhanced blending is wrong. RomanM and I discussed this at length on CA some time ago. A physics driven model like ERA40 will have a much reduced error over a simple or even a complex blending algorithm. Both the complex blending of CRU and the physics based blending of ERA40 ARE MODELS… That is the point.
There is no RAW DATA.
There are no observations at the cell level.
There are modelled results from the GCMS
There are TWO MODELS of gridded temps
A) the cru MODEL which models a 5 degree grid by averaging
averages, to quote william briggs, are NOT OBSERVATIONS
B) the ERA40 MODEL which models gridded temps using
1. point observations
2. physics
So, your notion that comparing GCM grids with Cru grids is somehow comparing model results with observations is confused at the depths of its soul. Its confused because the CRU priduct is not observations it is a MODEL of observations. all averages, all means, all anomalies are data MODELS. they are not observations.
Yeah, what would Karl Marx do?
Peter,
You may want to wait until others finish building a trail. I’ve been off pioneering routes. I guarantee you these routes track constraints on climate, but I’m not yet at a stage where I can efficiently guide a lay audience over the terrain. I might have to go back to academia to find time & resources to simplify a spoonfeedable narrative.
Update: Just a few minutes ago I finished isolating the summary of LOD (length of day) that tracks solar cycle deceleration. This resolves the nature of relations between LOD & AAM (atmospheric angular momentum) at multidecadal timescales.
-
What should you make of the weave for now? It tells you that global wind patterns & ENSO are constrained by the solar cycle. This is serious stuff.
-
Rather than keep my explorations under wraps, I’ll be informally sharing what I can when I can.
At the very least, everyone should – without further delay – learn the basics of the concept climatologists call “thermal wind“. (A web search will turn up more than enough basic material.)
Best Regards.
Lee’s battle was a draw; his campaign was a defeat. A draw in a ‘must-win’ situation counts as a defeat.
I sympathize with what Heartland says they were trying to do with the controversial ads, but they messed up the execution. An ad campaign that needs to be explained (or worse, explained away) is a PR blunder. Some people who might have been reached by the recent conference won’t be reached, simply because of the ads. Speakers were lost. Allies were offended. Audience was squandered. Credibility was sacrificed. A defeat, not a draw. The moral high-ground from Fakegate was abandoned in an afternoon, and the enemy didn’t need to fire a shot. Someone should have resigned.
Thanks for the explanation, Steven. I’ll need to think about this more deeply, but I finally understand what you are driving at, and at first look it seems reasonable.
Much appreciated,
w.
Paul,
Are you sure that you constrain the climate rather than observe the influence of climate on LOD?
beesaman: No, even their billboard told the truth.
The billboard was a terrible and costly mistake. The “truth” is that if you have an opinion there is a murderer somewhere who agrees with you. Judging you by that murderer is infantile.
Further to yr ‘Threats to Nature and Young People’ comment,
fan of *More* discourse:
The Wasteland, TS Eliot:
April, cruel month!
Zerstort. Shantih.
And May’s no picnic.
Another emoticon 
and H/T to David Bader.
The obvious second order solar effect is solar UV interactions with ozone in the statosphere influencing especially the southern and northern sub-polar annular modes.
The most obvious measured albedo effect is ENSO and cloud.
The problem with Webby is that he doesn’t really understand very much.
Bart,
I’m not sure whether I’m coming closer to what you have in mind, but the climate sensitivity is, indeed, only a part of the really important issues. I emphasized it, because it’s closer to what’s needed for policy decisions than the understanding of natural variability or the relative sizes of AGW and natural variability.
Climate sensitivity is, however, only closer to what’s directly useful for decision making, not all the way to the target. Real policy priorities do not involve climate indicators like anticipated temperatures, real policy priorities should concern human well-being over long periods and sustainability. In practice some indicators are needed to connect the ultimate priorities to near term decision making. Climate sensitivity and emission pathways allow for making estimates for future global average temperatures, but well-being or sustainability is not based on the global average temperature, it’s determined in much more complex way on the future climate as well as on all actions that will be done as part of climate policies.
For estimating the real influences on well-being many more issues must be considered in addition to the expected global average temperatures. For that a better understanding of climate is needed and that understanding should tell also about regional climates and about the risk of sudden transitions (tipping points). We need more advanced climate science, but we don’t need the ratio of natural to anthropogenic variability. We may learn more about that ratio, but we don’t have any specific use for that number.
Bart
And yet again, you trot out more greenwash drivel that general purpose subsidies favor fossil fuels over others.
Look, we’re impressed that you’ve finally grasped that subsidies as a general idea are harmful, for numerous reasons, so it really buys you nothing to keep restating your agreement as a way to cover up your earlier blunder. Right now fossil very obviously produces the bangs for the buck. Deal with it. Now this may well change, and maybe CO2 turns out to be the danger what those on the left hope it is, but for now it’s economical and not a demonstrable problem.
That would seem to be what YOU are saying. I don’t see that in what I wrote at all. You are projecting.
‘The IEA’s analysis of energy subsidies utilises the price-gap approach which compares the end-use prices paid by consumers, with reference prices (i.e. prices that would prevail in a competitive market). The difference between the consumer price and the reference price is the price gap, and subsidy removal amounts to its elimination.
For countries that import a given product, subsidy estimates derived through the price-gap approach are explicit. That is, they represent net expenditures resulting from the domestic sale of imported energy (purchased at world prices in hard currency), at lower, regulated prices. In contrast, for countries that export a given product – and therefore do not pay world prices – subsidy estimates are implicit and have no direct budgetary impact. Rather, they represent the opportunity cost of pricing domestic energy below market levels, i.e. the rent that could be recovered if consumers paid world prices. For countries that produce a portion of their consumption themselves and import the remainder, the estimates represent a combination of opportunity costs and direct government expenditures.
The OECD inventory addresses a broader range of measures used in OECD member countries, including many that do not reduce consumer prices below world levels. It uses a broad concept of support that encompasses direct budgetary transfers and tax expenditures that provide a benefit or preference for fossil-fuel production or consumption, either in absolute terms or relative to other activities or products. Such measures are classified as support without reference to the purpose for which they were first put in place or their economic or environmental effects. No judgment is therefore made as to whether or not such measures are inefficient or ought to be reformed.
Caution is required in interpreting the support amounts and in aggregating them. This is particularly the case as the majority of support mechanisms identified in the inventory are tax expenditures. These tax expenditures are relative preferences within a country’s tax system that are measured with reference to a benchmark tax treatment set by that country. Since the benchmark tax treatment varies from country to country, the value of this type of support is not comparable across countries. With respect to aggregation, the estimates generally do not take into account interactions that may be involved where multiple measures are removed at the same time.’ http://www.oecd.org/site/0,3407,en_21571361_48776931_1_1_1_1_1,00.html
http://www.iea.org/subsidy/index.html
R Gates
Surely we already discussed this paper at great length on WUWT? Very unimpressive. Extremely sparse data and many of them from lumps of trees. It seems to be entitled ‘Australasian temperature reconstruction September to January.’ Ah! The Antipodean growing season I assume? Do you really think this is impressive as a reconstruction of 1000 years of the whole climate?
Come to that anyway, a 0.6 warming in four centuries- which is the period my study covered. How long and slow is that? Put a trend line from 1650 to today-so use a proper lower axis point covering 400 years and not squeeze it into 1000- and see what you find. Youre right its not long and slow. Its long and glacially slow
tony
The really funny bit is that the models are themselves chaotic.
‘AOS models are members of the broader class of deterministic chaotic dynamical systems, which provides several expectations about their properties (Fig. 1). In the context of weather prediction, the generic property of sensitive dependence is well understood (4, 5). For a particular model, small differences in initial state (indistinguishable within the sampling uncertainty for atmospheric measurements) amplify with time at an exponential rate until saturating at a magnitude comparable to the range of intrinsic variability. Model differences are another source of sensitive dependence. Thus, a deterministic weather forecast cannot be accurate after a period of a few weeks, and the time interval for skillful modern forecasts is only somewhat shorter than the estimate for this theoretical limit. In the context of equilibrium climate dynamics, there is another generic property that is also relevant for AOS, namely structural instability (6). Small changes in model formulation, either its equation set or parameter values, induce significant differences in the long-time distribution functions for the dependent variables (i.e., the phase-space attractor).’ http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.full
Just followed a link and found myself here. Who’s Judith Curry? Anyone who would like to donate to Heartland can do so by going here:
It would probably be polite to redact the email addresses from Bast’s email.
What would you call taxing a company on money they paid to other nations in taxes. Taxing net or gross profit? No, I was perfectly serious.
