Oh – while Sol may be interesting enough the data limitations don’t allow much of any significance to be deduced. In may be more useful to consider trends in anomalies and bring in ocean and atmosphere data to close the energy budget.
I think I will just mosey along now on my little blue pony – http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=blue_horse.jpg – be sein’ y’all
sunspots have been counted since the invention of the telescope
Very compelling visuals in the Lindzen video, Anteros, thank you for posting that.
However one has to wonder whether there was anyone in that audience both competent in statistics and willing to challenge Lindzen on the following omission from his presentation.
If each point in the right slide is obtained as the average of 100 more or less normally distributed points in the left slide, the errors bars shrink by a factor of sqrt(100) = 10. Lindzen did not mention this.
I took Lindzen to be implying, both by this omission and his subsequent remarks, that in fact they don’t shrink, and that it is therefore misleading to zoom in on the right by a factor of sqrt(n) (n the number of points on the left producing one point on the right) without also increasing the length of the error bars in proportion.
Now imagine that McIntyre was in the audience. Would he have raised this point with Lindzen at question time, or would he have passed over it in silence?
Now further imagine that the speaker had been Mann instead of Lindzen, with the exact same talk, slides, and emphases, and ask again what would McIntyre have done.
It would be a very interesting poll to see who believes McIntyre would be just as likely to have raised this point with Lindzen as with Mann, and who believes otherwise. Especially if McIntyre himself were among those polled.
As the one who posted this video, Anteros, what do you think?
Reality (as revealed by experimental measurements):
1. Earth’s heat source is a pulsar, the same nuclear furnace that made our elements. That conclusion is based on data from hundreds of analyses of meteorites, planets, the Sun, the Moon, and solar emissions.
2. The Sun and its heat and particle emissions come from
a.) Neutron-repulsion & -emission of the solar core (60%),
b.) Neutron-decay of the product to Hydrogen (5%),
c.) Fusion of the product to Helium (35%).
That conclusion is based on data from analyses of atomic rest masses of the 3,000 atoms that comprise the entire visible universe and Einstein’s conclusion (E = mc^2).
NASA and DOE have selectively hidden, avoided, or manipulated the data for decades to help politicians avoid reality #1 and #2, respectively.
But reality will not be avoided.
It’s good to be optimistic Jim, some of the time. The toady green infiltration into physical science, its dependency on debt finance and the usual trappings of government excess are becoming far more clear to more people. That’s part of the reform movement. As the AGW left tends to be one note, boring and totalitarian in nature is also becoming more widely understood. Ultimately it’s this issue that is the driver of real reform.at trade and professional associations.
A more honest and direct discussion of political specifics in these matters will help advance reform. On the third link from WUWT, which is a scream by the way, we get to visit FULL STUPID on display from the APS. The actual political motives of the party in question are not referenced directly but everyone (around our circles) knows. Only some idiotic decorum or convention prevents the direct discussion of APS AGW leader and the uber left-wing agenda he is shilling for and is part of. It’s this sort of make-believe that drags this topic on forever and huge wastes of time discussing of all things meaningless temp data crowd this forum. The same time is being wasted at the APS all by letting one side control a technical narrative that is nonsense and obfuscating a political narrative that is most relevant to the story. Even Dr. Lindzen is far to gracious in the RS reform article.
We see this pattern here on these boards all the time. We accept silly rhetorical standards and the pace of change remains dismal. Byers has nothing to worry about at the APS while the wimp factor of skeptics remains this high for example. How obvious are their political motives? How obvious is it they are not discussed directly and specifically as they should?
Your links illustrated it perfectly. Expect nothing if this is a general demeanor and rules of discussion going forward.
Girma, you write “Why does Realclimate insist the business as usual case in Hansen et al model is scenario B instead of A?”
Simple. If they agree you are right, then the IPCC predictions are clearly garbage; which we know anyway. By pretending that what has happened is Scenario B, then they may be able to keep their scam going for a few more months. But then again, they may not.
I must admit that I find the correlation between lake levels and the solar cycle baffling. I have no idea what process can be the link, but I suspect that the levels of various bodies of water have little effect on thermonuclear reactions within Sol, so my guess is that solar output changes must cause a change in rainfall patterns.
The Sun’s output is heat source for the Earth…..but how much of it
reaches the Earth depend on the Earth’s orbit…..
The IPCC+ AGW keep the orbit CONSTANT or “INVARIANT”….on a
millenium scale…..this is the “INVARIANCE LIE ” of Mr. Forster in AR4-wg1-chapter 2…….see yourself…….the lie is repeated in chapter 9, Mrs. Hegerl, based on Goosse et al 2005 (only taking eccentricity of Berger (1978- out of-date- into account)….
……. but the real trajectory of the Earth’s orbit has more to it than simplistic eccentricity : Plenty of oscillations, osculations, Librations, which
was just recognized in a IPCC TSU reply to me, end of 2011…..
The AGW/IPCC reject further Orbital studies to be made because they know there
is an enormous amount of RF radiative forcing “in the pipeline”, [which
Warmist Hansen tries to hide on the bottom of oceans... nonsense]
….but it is the orbit, which decreases received net energy on Earth….
… and the present temp plateau since 2001 is the observed result……see my unrefutable, detailed and transparent booklet…..
JS
Have you seen Shaviv’s paper. Link in the bibliography.
http://www.sciencebits.com/OnClimateSensitivity
Does CERNs cloud experiment count, even though not published yet that I have seen.
Chris Ho,
I thought the discussion was on whether H I will be falsified and if H II and H III might be worth consideration.
Since the projections are based on the models simulations that indicate approximately 0.2 C per decade, the error in the models in the Antarctic and tropics appear to be higher than observation, and the trend in the tropics since 1994 is only 0.04C per decade, it appears likely that H I will be falsified. Perhaps a better look at the observations will help,
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2012/02/models-versus-observations.html
Of course, more high northern latitude stations could be added to the surface temperature records to postpone falsification, but without adjustment I doubt it will not be falsified.
Richard,
I strongly suspect that most “galactic cosmic rays” and all of our elements actually came from the Sun’s pulsar core, not from remote regions of the galaxy.
That would explain experimental evidence that:
i.) Minerals in iron meteorites were irradiated prior to compaction, and
ii.) The cosmic-ray exposure ages of iron meteorites are generally much greater than those of stone meteorites that formed further away from the pulsar [1]
1. “Composition of the noble gases in Canyon Diablo,” Geochemical Journal 16, 157-178 (1982) http://www.journalarchive.jst.go.jp/english//jnlabstract_en.php?cdjournal=geochemj1966&cdvol=16&noissue=4&startpage=157
Matt -
I didn’t see a question.You seem to want skeptics to prove that something is correct, …
Good point. The question was whether or not my construction (to the extent that it was even understandable) was correct. The “question,” such as it was, was to ask whether or not there is a flaw in my thinking. Not to prove that something is correct, but to show me how it is incorrect.
This seems to cause you anguish. I attribute to you a belief like “The consensus has to be correct because there is no strongly supported alternative”,
That isn’t how I see it. It is interesting that no matter how many times I have to correct people in that regard, they still see my opinion to be one as you describe above.
My “belief” (more like general sense of how it works rather than a belief – I think that “belief” is too strong a word) is that absent hard proof otherwise, it isn’t irrelevant that a “consensus” of expert opinion says that a certain interpretation is probably correct. I don’t think a “consensus” is dispositive in any way – in the sense that you attribute such a belief to me. Because I can’t evaluate the science for myself, I have to look at it as playing the probabilities. It doesn’t help the “skeptical” cause when smart people such as yourself, who understand the science much better than I, make simple mistakes of attribution w/r/t my beliefs.
Here’s the thing. I read threads like the “Sky Dragon” thread, or posts up at WUWT where very smart and knowledgeable “skeptics” say that AGW is impossible, and then I read other “skeptics” say that I should disregard such arguments because they are outliers, and then the same “skeptics” turn around and say that I shouldn’t disregard their opinions simply because they are outliers. Do you see the problem?
In fact, I don’t disregard any opinion because it is an outlier. I look at the information available and make a best guess.
That all said – if you can figure out what I was attempting to say in the post (I’m not sure it makes any sense), I would appreciate it if you could either confirm the logic or explain where it goes wrong.
Absolutely – the models are right because they are wrong and need to be rethunk. Ummm. The models are right because they are uncertain. Ummm. The models are right…
The observations being consistent with the models does not mean the models are right, it just means that they haven’t been demonstrated to be fundamentally wrong.
Chief,
That’s what the gun is for. The cougars that is.
Chris Ho-Stuart -
I agree with your point about length of trends, and generally would go even further..
You mention that -
From 1979-1999 onwards, the HadCRUT 20 year window has never gone below 0.15.
I keep an eye on the trends since 1990 for the sole reason that this was the year of the IPCC FAR. I’d therefore make the obsevartion that since then, Hadcrut3 has a trend of 0.14 [as does RSS)]
There are of course caveats aplenty to be had. Those with a ‘cooling’ agenda might point out that had Pinatubo erupted in 2009 rather than 1991, the trends would have been less than 1.0.
I’m not making great claims for these things, but saying that even a 20yr moving window has its limitations, as I’m sure you know. One obvious example of this is the likely trend of 1997-2006. Barring very dramatic changes, it will have a very low positive trend. I don’t think this is significant, but making a point of the 20 year trends of the past opens you up a little to the ‘what about 1997-2006!!’ if it is indeed very low [or even negative].
Or just too much thinking..
Gee, I posted three comments to Chris and he responded to none. I give up. Let his silly argument stand.
Web, we view your view as a lack of understanding. Evidence based.
