Golf Charlie, Schrodinger's cat

I am silent because I am tired and snuffling with a cold. Nothing significant should be inferred from my silence.

gc, Cook, Hansen and Schmidt are not sources that I would consider if I wanted an objective view if climate sensitivity.

Nov 7, 2017 at 5:33 PM | Schrodinger's Cat

That is where Climate Science has settled. It now seems to be stuck. The Models prove it.

Meanwhile, NASA have identified that things are rumbling under the Antarctic Ice. Does this cause further imbalance to Trenberth's Energy Budget?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/07/nasa-volcanic-magma-plume-under-antarctica-may-explain-ice-sheet-instability/

NASA: volcanic magma plume under Antarctica may explain ice sheet instability

From NASA’s Jet propulsion Laboratory and the “inconvenient science” department comes this study that dashes hopes of pinning melting in Antarctica entirely on human activity.

EM. My best wishes for your recovery (do you have the opportunity in NI to get a free flu-jab?). Return soon to keep us honest.

For more Consensus about the confirmation of the confirmed bias of Climate Science, about the accuracy and reliability of Climate Models, this is "interesting"

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

If Climate Scientists really believe this, what won't they believe?

The deliberately misleading name "Skeptical Science" is actually run by those who invented the 97% consensus and those who write alarmist articles for the Guardian. They cleverly combine elements of science with their own particular opinions in order to give innocent truth seekers the impression that all the alarmist claims are based on scientific facts.

I no longer bother to go there.

Nov 8, 2017 at 5:44 PM | Schrodinger's Cat

In the context of this thread, Skeptical Science makes interesting reading. Their level of denial around honest science, and how it should be presented, is closely tied to the views and opinions of the Hockey Team.

Their confidence in the Models deserves wider publicity, as would any adjustments to their wording.

EM -Sorry to hear that you have a cold. I hope it is not the same variety as the one that plagued me for almost a month. I am still at the coughing all night stage.

Here comes the Sun.

http://notrickszone.com/2017/11/09/new-paper-most-modern-warming-including-for-recent-decades-is-due-to-solar-forcing-not-co2/

"Though advocates of the dangerous anthropogenic global warming (AGW) narrative may not welcome the news, evidence that modern day global warming has largely been driven by natural factors – especially solar activity – continues to pile up.

Much of the debate about the Sun’s role in climate change is centered around reconstructions of solar activity that span the last 400 years, which now include satellite data from the late 1970s to present."

Various historical temperature reconstructions show a relationship with solar activity as measured by sunspot numbers. In particular, the cold periods seem to match with low solar activity. The alarmists claim there is no solar effect and usually point out the lack of correlation or claim that changes in TSI are not sufficient to cause temperature changes.

Looking at the bigger picture, solar cycles are thought to be caused by gravity effects due to the configuration of the larger planets. These cause distortions in the magnetic fields that lie within the surface of the sun. CMEs and major distortions are marked by sunspots, but in a way these just mark the position in the 11 year cycle. TSI, microwave 10.7 flux, solar wind, Ap index, UV radiation and magnetic field amplitude all follow the 11 year cycle but the polarity of the field switches so it really has a 22 year cycle.

While total TSI does not change much, the UV content does change significantly. The speed and quantities of charged particles change, and these in turn modulate cosmic radiation reaching the earth from deep space. Our planet is bathed in the particles and fields mentioned but we do not know if and how they interact. We can speculate that chemical reactions and particle formation are the two most likely phenomena. There is also some evidence to suggest that the incidence of cosmic dust arriving from space is related to the solar cycle.

I understand that just a one percent change in cloud cover could more than explain all the warming seen since the LIA. Cloud cover is therefore an extremely important factor but not one that is understood or handled adequately in the climate models.

Schrodinger's Cat, much earlier in this thread, I was interested in variations in the energy output of the sun. Is it possible that there are other cyclical changes, that are not necessarily linked to sunspots, but may account for LIA, MWP etc, with sunspots increasing the short term variability of longer term variability?

All of this variability obviously occurring before sunshine even gets near the Earth.

Yes, I seem to remember other, longer term cycles, that do seem to influence climate. I know less about them.

Try going to Climate etc (Judith Curry's site) and scroll back through previous posts. You will find the Bray cycle and I think there are others.

SC, thank you!

https://screenshots.firefoxusercontent.com/images/851e573d-e9a3-41c8-a5e4-d9323edf80d8.png

Climate: Past, Present and Future

Nov 11, 2017 at 4:52 AM | clipe

Lamb Climate Science Disinfectant. Kills 100% of all known computer models.

Mann germs, resist Lamb disinfectant for more than a decade!

Mann is using Black Knight defence

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

Why Climate Science, and Climate Models are wrong?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/12/consensus-climatology-in-a-nutshell-betrayal-of-integrity/

Consensus Climatology in a Nutshell: Betrayal of Integrity

Guest Blogger / 29 mins ago November 12, 2017

Guest essay by Pat Frank

"Today’s offering is a morality tale about the clash of honesty with self-interest, of integrity with income, and of arrogance with ignorance.

I’m bringing out the events below for general perusal only because they’re a perfect miniature of the sewer that is consensus climatology.

And also because corrupt practice battens in the dark. With Anthony’s help, we’ll let in some light.

On November third Anthony posted about a new statistical method of evaluating climate models, published in “Geoscientific Model Development” (GMD), a journal then unfamiliar to me.

WUWT readers will remember my recent post about unsuccessful attempts to publish on error propagation and climate model reliability. So I thought, “A new journal to try!”

Copernicus Publications publishes Geoscientific Model Development under the European Geosciences Union."

I have always been interested in developing young scientists to make the best of their skills and realised very early on that people are hard wired differently. There are “do better” people who are well organised, pay attention to detail and accuracy and like everything to be neat and ordered.

Then there are “do different” people, who have creative, active minds. They get bored easily, start lots of projects but seldom finish any. They like broad brush concepts and hate detail. Their office looks like a bomb site and they are disorganised.

R&D organisations need both types, but it is important to manage the application of skills. Do better people are ideal as analytical chemists where care and accuracy is paramount. They make great librarians too. Don’t put a do different person in that role. Redesigning the indexing system every month is a recipe for chaos.

A do better person likes clear objectives. A do different person hates anything that constrains the ability to think outside the box and deliver a totally innovative solution.
While it is important to avoid having a square peg in a round hole, most project teams need both types of scientist.

Why do I mention any of this? I have been thinking about the polarisation that is climate science and although the simple example outlined above is rather specific and trivial, it does, I believe, illustrate a small part of the explanation as to why different people see the same data and draw different conclusions.

I would like to develop this theme here but welcome your input and feedback, because otherwise there is simply no point.

GolfCharlie. Rejection of the paper was not all as biased as we are being led to believe. One contributor gave the following information:

....one of the reviewers of the paper for Earth Space Sciences was none other than Dr Ronan Connolly. Dr Connolly made a point of identifying himself. Dr Connolly, an independent scientist.. He gave a relatively sympathetic review, citing Koutsoyiannis, and Willie Soon. He thought radical changes were needed, and was somewhat doubtful that they would be made, but he said the paper might be publishable if they were.
The response at that stage was firstly a blast for not remaining anonymous, and then the usual listing of reviewer errors, eg “The reviewer’s recommended major revisions are misconceived and, if followed, would leave nothing publishable”
And so, of course no changes were made.
Dr Connolly was not impressed. He recommended rejection.

So rejection was not only by reviewers with vested interests.
I'm not saying this applies in this case (I cannot possibly judge) but commonly authors fall in love with their work and are the worst possible judges of it.

Another angle or thread of this discussion concerns “terms of engagement”. The IPCC was created to investigate and quantify the scientific consequences of rapidly increasing concentrations of anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

I now understand that many US agencies were given a similar brief. We know from the ClimateGate disclosures that CRU, a few other universities, the US agencies and the Met Office actually regarded themselves as the “Team” an abbreviation for the “Hockey Team” whose emblem was the now infamous and discredited Hockey Stick, complete with its rapid temperature increase and vanished earlier temperature fluctuations.

These points are not presented as cheap gibes but to explain that at that stage in our history the AGW hypothesis had been established, all the players (in a small, international team) had bought into the conclusions and already at that stage, there was a defensive mentality to repel attacks and further the cause.

The cause was to save the planet. That attracted massive publicity, green support, then political support followed by massive funding, that followed by massive increases in climatologists, all keen to save the planet. This is not the ideal way to conduct independent, objective, scientific investigation.

I would say that the original link between anthropogenic carbon dioxide and global warming has never been properly investigated, or, for that matter, the natural cycles that cause variations in our global temperature. Hubert Lamb intended that CRU should seek to understand natural climate drivers but this study never took place.

In science, experimentation is everything, but that is not possible with our climate. Modelling is the only way, but in normal science, models that fail validation are deemed useless. Somehow, that basic principle has been discarded in climate science.

The Hockey Team and IPCC had their unvalidated hypothesis. They now needed models to flesh out the consequences and detailed parameters. This required mathematicians, statisticians, climatologists and programmers. Detailed inputs were required. The cause of warming was not in question, everything else would flow from that. Armies of scientists and technicians would ensure that physical principles were applied. The models would be tuned to apply fluid dynamic principles to each cell with anthropogenic carbon dioxide as the only major climate forcing.

The result? Climate science obeys all the basic rules of physics while demonstrating a significant warming that matches the predictions of GHG theory. Fancy that. The science is settled because all the details tie up with expectation. The text books cannot be wrong.

People who look at the bigger picture and question the whole concept are regarded as cranks. People who question flaws such as the missing hot spot are ignored. The unpredicted pause was denied, then dozens of explanations were produced, then it was ignored. Such flaws are real. They mean that some assumptions are wrong.

Climatologists do not admit to being wrong. Climate models have been tuned to give a detailed match between forcing and temperature, well, particularly when the pause is not happening. The models have still not been validated and the flaws remain.

The point here is that massive effort on a global scale can create a very convincing world with carefully calibrated parameters that match theoretical expectations and assumptions. In the real world, we have clouds bubbling up, thunder storms, water phase changes, a multiplicity of poorly understood ocean oscillations, non linear relationships and a myriad of effects that do not appear in the models.

Climatology is stuffed full with people adjusting the details and even the data. It does not permit the intervention of people who question the big picture.

Supertroll, thank you, Ronan Connolly has co-written with Willie Soon, and he has been vilified for challenging the Consensus of Settled Climate Science. If only Climate Science had been the subject of more rigorous peer review, before Mann's Hockey Stick crossed the Rubicon and sealed its fate.

https://globalwarmingsolved.com/2017/05/progress-report-global-warming-solved-team/

Schrodinger's Cat
In the UK, there have been some infamous miscarriages of justice. Some have occurred because the Police have "known" from the outset, who the perpetrator was, and then needed to "find" evidence to corroborate it, whilst ignoring all other evidence that pointed in a different direction.

SC. Looking through the CRU website (for confirmation of Keith Briffa's death) I noted that the work brief of some of the investigators primarily involved natural climate drivers. I haven't investigated further.

Schrodinger's cat, Supertroll

This is the NASA GISS summary of natural and human influenced forcings.