Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[plunker]

Well you're the expert TB

Here's another one (with a real name).

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/22/historical-s...

There - a successful Paris Summit is now assured!

My work here is done.

[turbobloke]

plunker said:

Well you're the expert TB

Here's another one (with a real name).

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/22/historical-s...

More than one, surely?

As mentioned in an earlier post I re-read that article this morning.

The issue in this case is less to do with technical competence than motive, options and timing, and how the original material, its authors and accompanying pr referenced climate forcing as widely implied. As my earliest post on this news acknowledged.

plunker said:

There - a successful Paris Summit is now assured!

We may never know how you arrived at that curious and unwarranted prediction, was a computer model involved?

We may never know...in view of your other comment...

plunker said:

My work here is done.

If you think so then it must be.

[plunker]

TheExcession said:

plunker said:

Well you're the expert TB

Here's another one (with a real name).

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/22/historical-s...

There - a successful Paris Summit is now assured!

My work here is done.

Plunkers

Am I reading this situation right?

So having already adjusted all the land and sea surface temperatures and God knows what else, it now becomes essential to adjust all the records of counting spots on the surface of our sun?

Obviously a technical discussion belongs in the Science thread, but a quick synopsis here from yourself would be nice.

Essentially it reads to me that the data doesn't fit the model so obviously the data needs adjusting.

Doeasn't fit what model?

Never mind! I'm really out of time. Luckily though the first WUWT link I provided is as good a place to start as any. It's by solar physicist Leif Svalgaard - one of the project's leaders so the 'horse's mouth'.

[TheExcession]

Can I just check that I understand this?

The way that sunspots have been counted over the last hundred years doesn't tie up with what climate scientists believe sun spots should contribute to their models that predict climate change.

So there is a need to adjust the way sun spots were counted to fall in line with what the models are telling us.

Please tell I've got that horribly wrong.

[plunker]

turbobloke said:

plunker said:

Well you're the expert TB

Here's another one (with a real name).

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/22/historical-s...

More than one, surely?

No the link is to a single comment by Leif Svalgaard.

[turbobloke]

If the comment is in or attached to the article in any way then it was read.

If it's the comment about a strong solar influence (or not) and human tendencies, the irony runs deep. Any individuals who misrepresent solar forcings in relation to sunspot number and make threadbare weak statements as a result, are themselves victims of the human condition they ascribe so willingly and erroneously to others.

I already addressed that tendentious remark by pointing out that sunspot number alone is not a satisfactory metric of either solar eruptivity forcing due to the influence of coronal holes, for example, nor solar irradiance given, also for example, that the De Vries Suess cycle is weakly related to the sunspot record - if at all - but seen in cosmogenic radioisotope measurements and (of course) in climate data.

The strength of the comments on solar forcing arising from the recalibration exercise is out of place and the comments are therefore unsupportable...just as the basis for timing and options and of course the motive are unclear.

Good to see your work here isn't finished after all like other aspects of your posts it was taken with a large pinch of salt anyway.

[TheExcession]

turbobloke said:

a large pinch of salt.

Is this the salt responsible for all the Ocean Acidification? I know that acids and bases combine to make a salt, I just wondered if there is a lack of any 'base' (is) here?

[turbobloke]

We've been here before and the references plus helpful advice last time didn't work (it'll never work, the idea is to remain faithful) see Tuesday 08 January 2013 in this thread.

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

"You're looking at sunspot numbers again because it suits your purpose to keep the blinkers on. Look wider. The grand solar maximum ending in the 1990s isn't dismissed via sunspot numbers, as there are other aspects to solar activity which I included in recent posts. Your point rests on Leif's revised sunspot numbers, but the grand solar max doesn't."

The focus then, and now, on sunspot number is a distracton. AGW proponents have long attacked it on the basis that it's not as good as they would wish it wasn't iyswim. Set it up as more than it is, knock it down, claim a win, but actually it's a fail.

Related discussion here from 2011 in a now-closed thread.

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

The wider picture includes both solar eruptivity and solar irradiance with coronal holes and other solar features including faculae not depending on sunspots and therefore sunspot number. The solar influence on climate overwhelms any manufactured carbon dioxide effect on relevant timescales - see the last 20 years. The 'pause' was (not) explained away in a risible manner using 30+ excuses before AGW supporters eventually tried to make it disappear in a rentapaper by recalibrating buoy sea-surface temperature data and recalibrating expected statistical norms. Recalibration - where did we come in on this?

Easily found Vox Pop said:

The whole methodology of "science" as a discipline has been brought in to disrepute by these shysters. They won't be easily forgiven.

TheExcession said:

turbobloke said:

a large pinch of salt.

Is this the salt responsible for all the Ocean Acidification? I know that acids and bases combine to make a salt, I just wondered if there is a lack of any 'base' (is) here?

Acid salt, or just acid, they're on something for sure.

[wc98]

turbobloke said:

plunker said:

turbobloke said:

It's absurd but they're desperate and rentapapers are going to appear through to Paris. Recalibration of temperatures check, what other recalibrations might we see...

wow, what a shockingly crass response to years of collaborative work by the solar physics community.

Welcome back is Paris really that close?

With no warming for ~19 to ~20 years ongoing, how long before a recalibration of carbon dioxide measurements becomes tempting?

plunker said:

The issues with the historic sunspot count (and the faulty corrections that have been applied along the way) is a well known subject and this work to sort it out has been in the pipeline for years.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/04/counting-sun...

I think you must know it as well - shameful.

That enormous degree of sincere angst comes through so clearly in the above post, as in others before it.

Incidentally, yes I read all about it including at WUWT again this morning.

It is indeed shameful to claim that sunspot number revisions make a solar case for climate forcing more difficult. It's as though these people, and you, have never heard of coronal holes, and on top of that lack the most basic understanding of heliomagnetic and geomagnetic effects.

A school level science fail by so many people. I'd read all about coronal holes at school, but accept that others may not have had the same quality education at that stage or afterwards...particularly the vast majority of politicians who are both clueless on the basics and clueless as to who to listen to.

also ,rather than providing a virtually flat line on a graph of sun spot numbers,the latest graph looks like a smoothed version of the old and still shows significant variation over the record.

meanwhile , remember that small faux pas by the epa in polluting the animas river they were supposed to be clearing up ,turns out a local retired geologist predicted this exact scenario as a result of the epa meddling. he goes further and suggests it may well have been intentional. http://www.silvertonstandard.com/news.php?id=847
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/
personally i still err on the side of utter incompetence by a government agency as evidenced time and time again both sides of the pond.

[perdu]

I don't personally think that there's much of this incompetence that is accidental



Rather like someone's frequent re-emergences around here

At interesting times, for believers...

[TheExcession]

turbobloke said:

Acid salt, or just acid, they're on something for sure.

Amphetamine is a base I think, used to treat Attention Deficit Disorders - perhaps they could try some of that?

Anyway, lest we forget, courtesy of ESA & NASA (and this one is a 'baby' solar flare)



But hey! We're a full and magnificent 8 minutes away from that kind of stuff.... How long before they start quoting the inverse square law? That'll save us surely and ensure the continued worry about a bit too much plant food gas in our atmosphere.

Hey Turbobloke, how much do you reckon we could make going on tour in a good cop / bad cop type scenario?

I'll present the computer geek side, the models tell us we are doomed. I'll stand up and tell the audience that the whole of humanity is doomed. I might even slip in the 90 days to save the planet mantra, mention a few buddy names like Al Gore - you know the stuff really get the crowd wimpering.

Then just as the curtain has closed over the stunned silenced and fearful, amidst tears and concern we can hit them with a bit of William Blake - Jerusalem.

BUT BUT BUT - and this could be the deal breaker - I want one line changed from "Among those dark satanic mills" to "Among those dark satanic windmills". OK?

AWESOME - then it'll over to you. No one will even care what you say, they'll just be so relieved that it's not over, probably all you have to say it is OK - God will make sure it is OK.

Then we can sell hundreds of T-Shirts & posters - I'm thinking "Keep Calm and Carbing On".

waddyafink fella?

[turbobloke]

Surely it would be the Believer & Heretic tour?!

Or to be more accurate and after The Two Ronnies it would have to be The Two Heretics.

Not as lucrative as hosting a windfarm though.

[plunker]

TheExcession said:

turbobloke said:

Acid salt, or just acid, they're on something for sure.

Amphetamine is a base I think, used to treat Attention Deficit Disorders - perhaps they could try some of that?

Anyway, lest we forget, courtesy of ESA & NASA (and this one is a 'baby' solar flare)



But hey! We're a full and magnificent 8 minutes away from that kind of stuff.... How long before they start quoting the inverse square law? That'll save us surely and ensure the continued worry about a bit too much plant food gas in our atmosphere.

You're going for SIZE (ooh the sun is very BIG and very HOT) but it's a bit wrong-headed. The satellite era has shown the 'solar constant' to be even more constant than previously conjectured so the 'brute force' angle is a dead duck. These days solar-climate hypotheses that rely on low-energy solar variables having large effects on the earth's temperature via secondary mechanisms (eg cloud formation) are the only game in town (so careful when implying small things can't have large effects in the case of CO2 ). Hope that helps with your 'conceptualizing'.

[IainT]

TheExcession said:

Can I just check that I understand this?

The way that sunspots have been counted over the last hundred years doesn't tie up with what climate scientists believe sun spots should contribute to their models that predict climate change.

So there is a need to adjust the way sun spots were counted to fall in line with what the models are telling us.

Please tell I've got that horribly wrong.

You've got it horribly wrong. HtH

From WUWT ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/22/historical-s...):

Willis Eschenbach said:

Dear heavens, this resistance to correcting the mistakes of the past is most peculiar. Mosh is quite correct. The sunspot count of the past was differently calculated, due to changes in counting methods which are both well known and well explained.

What they have now done is to use the same methodology from start to finish.

Look, there have been some bogus “adjustments” to climate records by various miscreants. But that doesn’t mean we can just use what we have in front of us in any field. Sunspots are a good example. We know where we changed methodology in the past. We know the dates that calculation method changed, and how the method changed. As a result of the change we have two incompatible sets of numbers.

So should we just continue to use the existing sunspot dataset, which consists of two sets of DIFFERENT NUMBERS which were calculated in DIFFERENT WAYS and then just spliced together? That would be nuts, no?

Instead what we need to do, and what Leif and the others did, was to go back to the underlying observations, and to use a single unified clearly-defined method of counting sunspots from the start of the record to the end of the record. This single internally coherent dataset replaces the SPLICED DATASET of the past.

Anyone who thinks that using the same counting method from start to finish is somehow bad and wrong, well, they’re free to use the old spliced dataset … and if you do, I’m free to laugh at your adherence to past mistakes.

Note well that this says nothing about the endless adjustments to the temperature record, which may or may not be justified in any particular case, and which are nowhere near as clear-cut and clean as the sunspot count.

Anthony Watts said:

My viewpoint is that this adjustment corrects a clear mistake, and therefore should be welcomed.

[turbobloke]

Yesterday and not for the first time I said:

The issue in this case is less to do with technical competence than motive, options and timing, and how the original material, its authors and accompanying pr referenced climate forcing as widely implied. As my earliest post on this news acknowledged.

As usual there are distractions and diversions from the warm side, which is cool as we've seen it all before (2013, 2011, etc).

[IainT]

turbobloke said:

As usual there are distractions and diversions from the warm side, which is cool as we've seen it all before (2013, 2011, etc).

Purely addressing Ex's mistrust of the revision of sunspot data TB. I'm aware it's far more complex than just 'sunspots did it' but not all adjusting is fiddle-factored.

[turbobloke]

It's even more of a hotbed of spin these days with temperature misbehaving.

http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/328

In the first link below John Marshall's comment and Ben D's Leeds note are as interesting as the second link is mildly amusing.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/28/dr-leif-sval...

http://www.hamiltonbook.com/Fashion-Costume/leif-t...

With Paris approaching, rentapapers designed and/or spun to get easy on-message headlines from supine hacks remain the order of the day.

[krunchkin]

It just gets more and more insane. Everyone's going to be taking their summer beach holidays in Finland because the Med is going to be on fire apparently...

http://gu.com/p/4bemc?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

[turbobloke]

krunchkin said:

It just gets more and more insane. Everyone's going to be taking their summer beach holidays in Finland because the Med is going to be on fire apparently...

http://gu.com/p/4bemc?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Just think how many more weeks of this we can look forward to!

There's something of a positive flipside to this nonsense - when the time comes and nothing has happened.

"By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people."

"More heat waves, no snow in the winter"

“Most of the great environmental struggles will be either won or lost in the 1990s and by the next century it will be too late.”

"Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide [USA] two degrees by 2010.”

"A general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.”

"Arctic ice…is currently on track to melt sometime in 2008.”

One from the barmy biased beeb:

"And you’ll have an El Niño, that instead of lasting 18 months, lasts 18 years.”

Seemingly vanilla but immensely stupid - this last one comes with no prizes for guessing the mystic source.

"We no longer have a stationary climate"

[mybrainhurts]