“Well, that’s it then. The idiocy from AGWScienceFiction faking the physics is so ingrained that you think we don’t get any thermal infrared which is heat from the millions of degrees hot Sun’s core because, you think it some solid like Earth unable to radiate out its great thermal energy..”

Not a solid but closer to a liquid.
Let’s see, this seems about right:
“Thread: If You Could “Magically” Peel Away The Sun’s Mantle..
….
“It depends on how you do the “peeling back” and what you are calling the core. Assuming you mean peel it back suddenly and give the Sun no time to readjust to its new environment, and assuming that the core is where the nuclear fusion is happening, then you would be looking at an unbelievably bright X-ray source, moreso than white or blue, and it would be billions of times more luminous that the Sun is now (it couldn’t last that way for long, it would readjust and puff out into a red dwarf). The effect on the solar system would be that we would lose everybody– all you have to do is remove half the mass of the central object to lose everything that orbits it. ”

And this guys says:

” Quote Originally Posted by mugaliens View Post
13 times more radiation, huh? I would think that would set some fairly spectacular fires around the globe while boiling our oceans in short order.

That is only magnitude increase in visible light brightness, which is 86,000 times brighter. The amount of radiative energy that hits the earth would be 1.7 trillion times more! Then there is the increase in Solar wind to consider, if anyone is left to feel it. ”
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php/70774-If-You-Could-quot-Magically-quot-Peel-Away-The-Sun-s-Mantle

“The Core: The Sun’s core has a tremendously high temperature and pressure. The temperature is roughly 15 million °C. At this temperature, nuclear fusion occurs, turning four hydrogen nuclei into a single helium nucleus plus a LOT of energy. This “hydrogen burning” releases gamma rays (high-energy photons) and neutrinos (particles with no charge and almost no mass).
….
The Convective Zone: In this next layer, photons continue to make their way outwards via convection (towards lower temperature and pressure). The temperature ranges from one million °C to 6,000 °C.

The Photosphere: This is the lower atmosphere of the Sun and the part that we see (since it emits light at visible wavelengths). This layer is about 300 miles (500km) thick. The temperature is about 5,500 °C. ”
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/sun/sunstructure.shtml

“The Sun’s photosphere has a temperature between 4500 and 6000 K (with an effective temperature of 5777 K) and a density of about 2×10−4 kg/m3;[5] other stars may have hotter or cooler photospheres. The Sun’s photosphere is composed of convection cells called granules—cells of gas each approximately 1000 kilometers in diameter with hot rising gas in the center and cooler gas falling in the narrow spaces between them. Each granule has a lifespan of only about eight minutes, resulting in a continually shifting “boiling” pattern.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosphere

“This area holds about 50% of the sun’s total mass. The temperature of the core is about 15 million degrees Kelvin and the density is about 150 g/cm^3 (approximately 10 times the density of gold or lead). The pressure in the core might be as much as 250 billion times the pressure of the earth’s atmosphere. The hydrogen burning core extends to about 25% (approx. 175 000 km) of the solar radius. The temperature at the edge of the core is halved and the density drops to 20g/cm^3″
Equatorial Radius: 695 500 km.
Mass: 1.989 x 10^30 kg, about 333 000 the mass of earth.
Density: 1.409 g/cm^3.
Escape Velocity: 617.7 km/s.
http://www.novacelestia.com/space_art_solar_system/sun.html

Looks like when when the ice age sets all you’re going to get from the AGW belivers is that it should have cooled much sooner and when the ice thaws, rivers are going to run boiling red. Global warming is the secular socialist version of the 10 Plagues of Egypt. What the Left will never see is that when you tear down the foundations upon which the country is built you have a different country; and, the Left is not really smart enought to build up a newer, better country in the ashes. Just the reverse: we’ve seen this all of this before in fairly recent history so in one sense, we can predict our future as a result of the Left’s fear of global warming. I think we’ve been seeing it unfold for many years: loss of values, cultural and social disintigration, helplessness. Hot World Syndrome is nothing more than a symptom.

Two words running together is my goof in reformatting the source text for word wrap display.

To find the precise error introduced into F3(AGW) by the defective filter implementation I extended the the dates to 2034. I then extended the first filter range by 10y , the second 8y beyond that and the final F3 to 2034. This providing a correctly calculated FPRED for 2010.

the unfiltered AGW(2010) = 0.1481
FPRED(2010)=0.1480

Not surprisingly F3 barely modifies the exponential. The difference being 0.1 mK

So what was labelled as “filter artefact” in figure 3 was not and artefact. It was totally due to an incorrect implementation of the filter: a _calculation_ error by Vaughan Pratt.

Now If I crop the dates back to 2010 but leave the filter ranges extended. The first one will run on and produce 10 extra years of distorted data. The same for each stage. We still get results out to 2034 but now the final value is 0.114 The data in each stage is not right but the window is full at each stage and at least the filter coeffs are not being distorted by AVERAGE() having to truncate.

Finally I crop all filter columns back to 2010 as in the original and get 0.98

So the first observation: 0.148-0.098 , the value of 140 mK that I read off the graph by eye was bang on.

Taking the most favourable end of the range of the error caused by incorrectly running F_defective(DATA) right up to the end of the data that gives a REAL residual MRES of 100mK, not the 8mK shown in figure 6.

Compared to the range of data in hadCrut3 of about +/-0.5K that is a residual of 10%.

Perhaps Vaughan will consider changing the title of his presentation to :

“Circular logic to within 10%” .

Less impressive but more truthful.

The bolded sentence was added in the final(?) draft of IPCC AR5. Rawls (the leaker) went ballistic in large part over it. I don’t see what the big deal is. It’s a weasel worded admission.

————————————————————————————
Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. We focus here on observed relationships between GCR and aerosol and cloud properties.

Willis,

You can equivocate this all you want, but by my standards of morality what Mr. Rawls did was dishonorable and lacking in morality. I could care less what the world’s standards are, for as we see daily, the world is a pretty messed up place. I could also care less about the IPCC process in general– a far too controlled and too homogenized and sanitized a process to be of much interest to me.

So David, are you suggesting that if we were to move Venus out to say– the orbit of Neptune, that Venus would have the same surface temperature? You don’t think the solar energy reaching down through that thick atmosphere has any role in heating?

Most interesting analysis, which would go quite against all known laws of physics. Why don’t you figure out what would happen to Venus if it were out where Neptune is and get back to us on that…

Despite what some would post here with their “estimates”, the measured downwelling surface SW solar radiation on Venus is about 90 + or – 12 w/m^2. With the very thick GH atmosphere, once this strikes the rocks and is converted to LW, this makes an ideal condition to really get things warmed up. Now, Venus does have active volcanic activity, and even if it is 10 times as active as the Earth, it might bring up about 1 w/m^2 of heat to add to the 90 w/m^2 of solar insolation.

Take Venus out to the orbit of Neptune, and it cools down. Simple physics.

I think the subject of this presentation is most certainly climate.
It also has all the trappings of science, and was, sadly, presented to the AGU as climate science.

I see no need for those checking the validity of its methods to be climate scientists, so the background of those discussing here seems irrelevant to this point of whether the sugject is climate science. In fact there is a clear and obvious need for a lot of what gets published as climate science to be vetted by a broader audience.

If someone wishes to say the author is not qualified maybe that should have been done before he was invited to present this mess to the AGU .

So we are discussing climate science, though we are getting close to establishing it consists mostly of what Feynmann would have called cargo cult science.

BBD

Let me go through your last post

- You will have to stop making factually inaccurate claims. [i.e. that the record shows it has stopped warming]

Duh! That’s what the record shows, BBD (two records, GISS and UAH show very slight warming, two records, HadCRUT and RSS show very slight cooling = in summary, “it has stopped warming”)

- You will have to acknowledge that nobody ever said natural variability would stop because of AGW.

I never said that, either.

- You will have to acknowledge that this means monotonic warming is nothing more than a contrarian strawman.

“Contrarian strawman” sounds like polemic to me, rather than a scientific term. IPCC forecasted “0.2C per decade warming over next two decades”, which sounds pretty “monotonic” to me; so far this has not occurred.

- You will have to acknowledge that the recent slow-down in warming is consistent with natural variability.

Why not? I agree that IPCC has underestimated the impact of “natural” variability/forcing, as evidenced by the past 10-15 years.

- You will have to acknowledge that it in no way ‘falsifies’ AGW.

Not yet, at least. Santer says it takes 17 years to be statistically significant, so we still have a couple of years to go. Even then it would not falsify “AGW” as such (although it might falsify “CAGW”).

- You will have to acknowledge that making such a claim – implicitly or explicitly – is simply denialist rhetoric, not scientific analysis.

Se above comment re. polemic, but no one has made any “claim” – simply that the current lack of warming raises serious questions about the magnitude of AGW (not about the concept per se).

- You will have to acknowledge that you have been using this denialist rhetoric incessantly in comments here.

More polemic.

BBD, your post has not added anything new.

The current “lack of warming” is real, it emphasizes the possible greater importance of natural variability/forcing factors (which have consistently been estimated very low by IPCC), if it lasts much longer it will raise questions regarding the magnitude of AGW, but is still too short to tell us much and IPCC is apparently not making a big deal out of it in the AR5 draft.

Hope this covers the points you raised to your satisfaction.

Max

BBD, wipe the foam off your mouth. One-third of all human emissions have occurred since 1998 with no real response in temperatures. Natural variation is one thing. Ignoring reality, which seems to be your specialty, is something else entirely.

The IPCC reports thus far have made very little real difference in the overall global policies. To be sure, the poorest countries will suffer the most, and they have the least to offer in terms of making any impact on GHG emissions. The token efforts (whether needed or not) hardly amount to “high stakes”. The stakes are actually highest on the uncertainty to to upside. If Hansen and others are correct, and these years are being wasted when action could be taken, then future generations will pay, and most of the payment will be made by the poorest countries. That might be fine for those of us in developed countries, but we should be clear that risk and uncertainty cuts both ways and the poorest will suffer the most and we are deciding that now by our inaction if Hansen is correct.

Erlykin state: “We find no positive evidence”.

As you know, WHT, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Right?

Max

Pekka, earlier in this thread you said you thought both (all three actually) sets of data (the time series and the two analytical functions) must be treated in the same way, which sounds good on the face of it.

However, since the analytical functions can be fitlered correctly and to a good precision, it seems illogical to insert a known error onto those functions is the hope that it may be a bit like the error in incorrectly filtering the time-series.

As we have seen, and you discussed briefly with Vaughan, the effect of narrowing the window near the end results in the data being stretched forward in time. In the case of the exponential this manifests as a progressive reduction in its amplitude, and quite a sever one, that totally changes the nature of the function.

Equally, I think it is obvious that stretching essentially flat data like the end of hadCrut will not reduce it in the same way. Indeed even by eye it is clear that the filtered result of the data is a reasonable representation. It is equally clear that the filtered AGW is a gross distortion.

To justify retaining the distortion of all three as a method, it is necessary to demonstrate that they will all be affected in a similar way and that the hope that the errors will “cancel out” is well founded. I have demonstrated that they are not.

In face of that situation I see no justification for deliberately distorting SAW and AGW by unnecessarily using a known defective process when it can be done correctly with a perfectly good, well-designed filter.

It remains to put bounds on the error in F3(hadCrut3) to ascertain the true residual MRES of this model.

I have done this and estimate the _best case_ residual to be “within 100mK”.

phatboy -

Wars are not some abstract, pure entity, fought only for one thing or another. They are the result of political processes and they are fought to achieve political aims. Wars fought to maintain the flow of energy (at least to some extent) reflect, (at least to some extent), political choices about what type of energy is to be used. Wars fought to safeguard our food supplies would inevitably be similarly political. As such, I wouldn’t know how to respond to your hypothetical other than to say, “It would depend.”

The relevant point, IMO, is that if we are going to consider the relative costs and benefits of different sources of energy, then the trillions spend to keep oil flowing needs to be considered. Is the exact amount hard to figure? Of course. Is doing so influenced by political biases? Sure. But how does that differ from analysis that does not include the trillions in military expenditures to keep oil flowing?

If someone here has discovered Shangri-la – where everything is easy to calculate and nothing is influenced by political biases, I would appreciate it if they could provide me with directions for how to get there.

gbaikie – perhaps it is only those who have a grounding in real world physics who can see how clever the tweaks of the sleights of hand, this is not something created out of ignorance, regardless how many in ignorance repeat the memes..

..without bothering to check the basic physics or provide any proof that the basic physics they use is actually possible – which is what you are doing.
The AGWScienceFiction claim for their fictional “Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget” is that shortwave from the Sun, mainly visible, does all the heating of Earth’s land and water – why won’t you or anyone else prove this to me if you think this is real world physics?

Surely there must be gazillions of pages showing exactly how visible light from the Sun physically heats land and water? And if visible light as from the Sun is capable of this, where are all the applications from it? We have tehrmal infrared saunas, where are the manufacturers of visible light saunas? Why do the manufacturers of lightbulbs for greenhouse growing, it’s a huge industry, do everything they can to take the radiant heat out of their lightbulbs to leave the visible for photosynthesis?

The real world of applied science falsifies the AGWSF Energy Budget.

I have deconstructed their fictional “Greenhouse Effect” to show how the sleights of hand were made in this science fraud – what in that is giving your problems? Or haven’t you bothered to read it?

Ah, but think of synchronization, a financial ice age synchronized with a thermal ice age would reset civilization to pre-industrial or pre-baby boomer conditions. After the fact, it will be obvious that it would happen :)

Some reading for our free-market fetishists, who think that “the market” prices the externalities of fossil fuels:

Each stage in the life cycle of coal—extraction, transport, processing, and combustion—generates a waste stream and carries multiple hazards for health and the environment. These costs are external to the coal industry and are thus often considered “externalities.” We estimate that the life cycle effects of coal and the waste stream generated are costing the U.S. public a third to over one-half of a trillion dollars annually. Many of these so-called externalities are, moreover, cumulative. Accounting for the damages conservatively doubles to triples the price of electricity from coal per kWh generated, making wind, solar, and other forms of nonfossil fuel power generation, along with investments in efficiency and electricity conservation methods, economically competitive. We focus on Appalachia, though coal is mined in other regions of the United States and is burned throughout the world.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05890.x/abstract

It is interesting to note the selective concern about “boondoggles.” As it stands, there is no question that our current decision-makers for energy, military, and agricultural policy development travel a revolving door to the defense, energy, and chemical/big ag industries.

Boondoggle are us.

We have met the boondoggle, and it is us.

Andrew wrote: “People who signed up for the review process have been perfectly free to make legitimate criticisms”
——————————————————————————————–
Yes, which the IPCC can then choose to ignore. After the report is published, any criticisms effectively fall on deaf ears.

If only we could shake the shackles of more CO2 in the atmosphere being harmful, then we could make progress in renewable energy. The issue with renewable energy is storage; we have to be able to store the energy so that we can use it when we want to. There are all sorts of technologies out there, which are waiting to be engineered. If governments would just stay out of things, and maybe help occasionally, but not interfer, then I am sure progress will be made.

I believe the sun gives us something like 1000 times the energy that we consume. So we need to tap just a small fraction of this, and we will make enormous progress. There is no hurry. North Amercia is swimming in hydrocarbons at the moment, and if we succeed in mining methyl hydrates, this excess will only increase. And large parts of the world can follow. In the meanwhile, there are various technologies available that mimic photosynthesis. If we can increase the concentration of CO2 by capturing it from, for example, power plants, then this could be very useful.

There is already a fish farm in the Sinai desert, and a greenhouse just outside Adelaide, with a second one to be built near Doha. The UK has produced 5 litres of gasoline from the air. We can turn waste agricultural products into ethanol. And so on and so forth. Let us get rid of this nonsense of CAGW, and let private enterprise loose. I wont say we will solve our problems, but I am sure we will make enormous progress.