tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post5137628833160507074..comments2023-08-24T23:19:59.072+02:00Comments on Opinionations: Sunspots and ClimatePhilip Machanickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03164887573361181817noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-5196771266815280212008-12-10T00:41:00.000+02:002008-12-10T00:41:00.000+02:00Philip,Record low? You are correct of course, I w...Philip,<BR/>Record low? You are correct of course, I was just being facetious. I regret writing that now. However I will take issue with your comment that 2008 will be warmer than any year prior to 1998. That is misleading. It may be correct, if you define a year Jan-Dec, but depending on where you define the 12 month boundary, I think you will find that such statements are premature. By Greighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14845487134006948830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-24883565201996251092008-12-09T11:52:00.000+02:002008-12-09T11:52:00.000+02:00Record low? I have the HadCRUT3 numbers in front o...Record low? I have the HadCRUT3 numbers in front of me now. The 2007 anomaly is 0.405, higher than any year before 1998. 2008 is as yet incomplete but what we have so far is an anomaly of 0.315, again warmer than anything before 1998. The wattsupwiththat article has confused some because it compares two months in a way that the less careful reader would think it was comparing two years. Such Philip Machanickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03164887573361181817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-43773735902957817762008-12-09T06:41:00.000+02:002008-12-09T06:41:00.000+02:00Philip,The fact that tobacco companies as a vested...Philip,<BR/><BR/>The fact that tobacco companies as a vested interest are attempting to corrupt the scientific process is not proof of a link between passive smoking and health. And just because there is a consensus of opinion that there is a link between passive smoking and health, also does not mean that it is proven. It is the same with AGW. Consensus of opinion is meaningless in science, Greighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14845487134006948830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-14391478140656072552008-12-08T13:48:00.000+02:002008-12-08T13:48:00.000+02:00Greig, did you read the tobacco paper? It was a st...Greig, did you read the tobacco paper? It was a study of the methodology tobacco companies used to undermine the process of developing policy from the science by tactics such as defunding research that didn't produce results they agreed with.<BR/><BR/>There are papers describing rapid melts in the paleoclimate in the last 200,000 years. For example, one in <A HREF="http://www.mindfully.org/Water/Philip Machanickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03164887573361181817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-79286548243273492212008-12-05T06:05:00.000+02:002008-12-05T06:05:00.000+02:00I disagree completely with your view that the AGW ...I disagree completely with your view that the AGW hypothesis is not based on observed correlation. To state otherwise is to deny the fundamental requirement for observation in the scientific process. Climate models are indeed based on physics, but they are also based on assumptions which are certainly tweaked to match the observations. That is how climate models work. I am afraid you and I Greighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14845487134006948830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-5452560141832092872008-12-05T03:00:00.000+02:002008-12-05T03:00:00.000+02:00Greg, I don't have time to check through all of th...Greg, I don't have time to check through all of this. Just a few points. I don't believe it's correct to say that climate science is only working with 30 years of correlation. For a start, the climate models are based on physics, not correlation. Secondly, they are based on a combination of hindcasting and forecasting. You may argue that hindcasting can be faked, models can be overfitted to the Philip Machanickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03164887573361181817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-30767768535788048092008-12-05T01:31:00.000+02:002008-12-05T01:31:00.000+02:00Science is one thing, but politics is involved whe...Science is one thing, but politics is involved whether we like it or not. The constant reference to “scientific consensus” is symptomatic, since as you know science is not issue subject to consensus which is a solely political notion. <BR/><BR/>I take your point about vested interests using “guerilla tactics” to misinform the public. It has certainly happened before, in particular with regardGreighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14845487134006948830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-61957248089465475002008-12-05T01:28:00.000+02:002008-12-05T01:28:00.000+02:00Philip,Firstly with regard to the last 10 years of...Philip,<BR/><BR/>Firstly with regard to the last 10 years of warming. You are correct, 10 years of “no warming” does not mean a reversal of the trend. However, it should be recognized that the bulk of the evidence for global warming arises from a 30 year data set, from 1970 to 2000. I would argue, this is also an insufficient timescale to demonstrate a correlation. You have already proved Greighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14845487134006948830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-71332358338149092232008-12-04T15:07:00.000+02:002008-12-04T15:07:00.000+02:00Greig, sorry about converting your "no warming" st...Greig, sorry about converting your "no warming" statement into something stronger. At least I put it somewhere that allowed replies: <I>The Australian</I> is annoying in that you never know when they will close comments.<BR/><BR/>I would be only too happy if you were right but unfortunately science is not built in sentiment. I was involved in other similar debates in the past -- the effect of Philip Machanickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03164887573361181817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-64029342855069367092008-12-04T13:00:00.000+02:002008-12-04T13:00:00.000+02:00[PM] "As for the cosmic ray stuff: if a combinati...[PM] "As for the cosmic ray stuff: if a combination of the sun + CO_2 as predicted by the models fits reasonably well, why do we need to worry about what has yet to be shown to be at best a second order effect?"<BR/><BR/>How do you know the "cosmic ray stuff" is a second order effect?<BR/><BR/>The problem is that sun+CO2 only correlates with the data from about 1970 to 2000. After that, the Greighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14845487134006948830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-28367382572084047552008-12-04T05:15:00.000+02:002008-12-04T05:15:00.000+02:00Blogs like this, with at least one informed person...Blogs like this, with at least one informed person willing to patiently correct misconceptions, are important for helping the educated lay person understand climate change. <BR/><BR/>But I think it is a pity that some bloggers feel compelled to impugn the motives of those they disagree with. This is an annoying distraction for those of us trying to understand the issues.<BR/><BR/>Thanks heaps forAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-27432163954281170812008-12-03T13:16:00.000+02:002008-12-03T13:16:00.000+02:00Philip,You have made several false statements that...Philip,<BR/><BR/>You have made several false statements that require correction. At no stage have I stated that in the last 8 years the globe is “cooling”, nor have I stated that the warming trend has “reversed”. I expect that in any response to me you will retract those comments.<BR/><BR/>What we both know is that the warming trend has significantly slowed, and you acknowledge that. My point Greighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14845487134006948830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-59167960802476562572008-12-03T11:37:00.000+02:002008-12-03T11:37:00.000+02:00One Greig here (a bit late for me to get in a resp...One Greig <A HREF="http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/index.php/theaustralian/comments/deep_seated_ambiguity/P25/" REL="nofollow">here</A> (a bit late for me to get in a response, hence the reply here) criticises this article for not showing the last 8 years in the graph, which he alleges "doesn’t include the last 8 years of data (ie no warming)". I haven't found a similar graph Philip Machanickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03164887573361181817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-87643179132948867432008-10-11T13:43:00.000+02:002008-10-11T13:43:00.000+02:00Buono, what's your evidence for your statements? I...Buono, what's your evidence for your statements? If you have references please post pointers, otherwise it's just an opinion. The mainstream climate models capture the overall effect of energy flows pretty well, give or take that ocean modelling is still relatively primitive. The sort of effect you are proposing is unlikely to be more significant than the errors of inaccurate modelling of heat Philip Machanickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03164887573361181817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-54069704256914631422008-10-06T22:43:00.000+02:002008-10-06T22:43:00.000+02:00The sun radiates energy in a wide spectrum of wave...The sun radiates energy in a wide spectrum of wavelengths. Some lambdas may be captured by our atmosphere and transduced into heat at earth surface level some others would tend to destroy our upper atmosphere or to escape away.<BR/>Hence the statement that the overall energy radiated is related to the surface temperature on the planet is a simplistic model. Sunpots number and duration may have anBuonohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00690763279670086253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-78239218067876978432008-06-23T08:28:00.000+02:002008-06-23T08:28:00.000+02:00"Anonymous", please give a name, otherwise I don't..."Anonymous", please give a name, otherwise I don't know if all the comments are the same person or not.<BR/><BR/>Sunspots or TSI do <I>not</I> correctly model temperature variation. I looked at the data from 1975 to present when the warming trend is clear, and we have sunspot numbers and (for most of that period) satellite TSI.<BR/><BR/>Over that period, <A HREF="http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/Philip Machanickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03164887573361181817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-76979848332717173202008-06-15T12:26:00.000+02:002008-06-15T12:26:00.000+02:00And Phillip, you might have noticed that this shor...And Phillip, you might have noticed that this short term "variation" was discovered by the CO2 theories POST FACTO... <BR/><BR/>It was only after the predicted warming failed to appear that they changed their theory post facto to include it. At the same time they had the unbelievable gall to say they were right all the time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-10937820680523397692008-06-15T12:24:00.000+02:002008-06-15T12:24:00.000+02:00First off TSI does not measure the second order ef...First off TSI does not measure the second order effects such as magnetic influences on cloud formation. <BR/><BR/>The true strength of the solar model, however, is that it predicted the current cooling while the CO2 models did not. In the end all that really matters in a scientific theory is how it predicts empirical reality. <BR/><BR/>What we need to do is stop arguing who is on what side of theAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-68880042816690063222008-05-18T03:10:00.000+02:002008-05-18T03:10:00.000+02:00climate chaos, please point me to one climate mode...climate chaos, please point me to one climate model using CO_2 which assumes constant solar input. The serious climate scientists include all known influences, natural and anthropogenic.<BR/><BR/>Please also see <A HREF="http://opinion-nation.blogspot.com/2008/04/climate-science-predictive-power.html" REL="nofollow">another article</A> on this site where I address the issue of predictive power ofPhilip Machanickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03164887573361181817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-88631668627684032232008-05-16T19:46:00.000+02:002008-05-16T19:46:00.000+02:00Sunspots are a proxy for solar output. But, the r...Sunspots are a proxy for solar output. But, the real factor is what type of radiation is reaching the earth and in what form. The sunspot correlation is relatively ok. <BR/><BR/>But total radiation is not the final answer. Some of the radiation might be ionizing to the upper atmosphere resulting in more higher clouds, and less solar radiation entering the atmosphere. The sunspot guys discussClimate Chaoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00375070925286838162noreply@blogger.com