I was surprised at how much higher the uncertainty was than the claimed imbalance on which IPCC claims 90% confidence.
<blockquote>There is a <b>6 W m-2 discrepancy </b>in the baseline measurements across different satellite systems, plus significant differences in trends since 1980. . . .For reference, the 20th century <b>CO2 forcing is 1.7 W m-2</b>.</blockquote>
i.e. the discrepancy is 350% of the CO2 forcing.
Judith Lean further observes that the modeled unrealized global warming is 0.85 Wm-2 (Hansen et al.) - or less??*
The uncertainties and calibration between satellites are also remarkably high. This can give little or major TSI trends over the satellite period. For further discussion see:
<a href="http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/" / rel="nofollow">N. Scafetta, </a> "Total Solar Irradiance Satellite Composites and their Phenomenological Effect on Climate," chapter 12, pag 289-316. (In "Evidence-Based Climate Science: Data opposing CO2 emissions as the primary source of global warming" edited by Don Easterbrook, Elsevier) (2011). <a href="http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta-easterbrook.pdf" rel="nofollow">PDF</a>
Reducing uncertainty.
The UK National Physical Lab has developed a system to give a tenfold reduction in uncertainty. That would give a three fold reduction in the time required to distinguish between models. See:
<a href="http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/47305" rel="nofollow">Orbiting standards lab could improve climate predictions</a> etc.
Improving satellite uncertainty would appear to be a far more critical investment than running more model projections with such large uncertainties, especially in light of Hansen's prognostications.
↧