Merged AGW without HADCRUT3

[BenBurch]

Mmm...mmm...mmm....

Those words look absolutely delish!

Now you are acting like a jerk, and as I have told you how I interpreted your collection of dead links already, owe me an apology.

 

[Wangler]

You at least have to READ them if you want to use them as some sort of proof, even if you are a layman.

And you don't have to even follow the bunny trail to discount them outright?

ETA: What part of the abstracts or the link's presentation of the paper contents do you dispute?

 

[Wangler]

Now you are acting like a jerk, and as I have told you how I interpreted your collection of dead links already, owe me an apology.

I was a bit over the top, but the comparison to Mhaze hit me where it hurt.

Ben, I apologize for my snarky post about the words tasting good.

 

[mhaze]

I was a bit over the top, but the comparison to Mhaze hit me where it hurt.

Ben, I apologize for my snarky post about the words tasting good.

Are there still lots of dead links over there at our friends at co2science?

I guess they haven't quite got over that last Warmer-hacker attack.

Let's quote them some more, just for fun.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

I probably can read the paper when I get to work next week. I'm interested in how "chance" was defined, given that anyone can show some forecasting skill by using climatology.

I do have access to this paper at work. I think that my intuition that the author didn't normalize the statistics for climatology was basically correct. The skill scores were vastly inflated by the fact that forecasting non-occurrences of a "rare" event yields a high success rate. In this case, gales are rare in England in the summer so Summertime forecasts of no gales occurring are almost guaranteed to be correct.

Corbyn issues forecasts of events happening in intervals which are between 3 and 6 days long. Even given this amount of leeway, only 23 of the 41 gales during the study period occurred in an interval that Corbyn had forecast a gale for, and there were 21 intervals for which Corbyn forecast a gale but none occurred.

 

[BenBurch]

I was a bit over the top, but the comparison to Mhaze hit me where it hurt.

Ben, I apologize for my snarky post about the words tasting good.

Apology accepted.

 

[BenBurch]

And really you are nothing like MHaze, I apologize for that.

 

[Malerin]

This is from the Narwhal article:

"Studies in the Canadian high Arctic,
Baffin Bay, and West Greenland report findings that are
markedly different from the overall trends of sea ice
reduction. Since 1970, the climate in West Greenland
has cooled, reflected in both oceanographic and biological
conditions (Hanna and Cappelen, 2003). Contrary
to a reduction of sea ice, Baffin Bay and Davis
Strait display strong significant increasing tends in ice
concentrations and extent, as high as 7.5% per decade
between 1979 and 1996, with comparable increases detected
back to 1953 (Parkinson et al., 1999; Deser et al.,
2000; Parkinson, 2000a,b; Parkinson and Cavalieri,
2002; Stern and Heide-Jørgensen, 2003). Predictions for
the future suggest similar trends, where climate models
projecting sea ice trends over the next 50 years note
Baffin Bay is one of the few areas with increased sea ice
concentrations and sea ice thickness (Sewall and Sloan,
2004).

http://staff.washington.edu/klaidre/docs/LaidreandHJ_2005a.pdf

 

[BenBurch]

And that means what?

Remember some places WILL get cooler as the planet warms because ocean currents and atmospheric circulation will change.

 

[Malerin]

And that means what?

Remember some places WILL get cooler as the planet warms because ocean currents and atmospheric circulation will change.

So Gore can show a stranded polar bear, but Narwhals hemmed in by too much ice is off limits?

 

[BenBurch]

So Gore can show a stranded polar bear, but Narwhals hemmed in by too much ice is off limits?

No, but what does it PROVE?

 

[Reality Check]

This is from the Narwhal article:

"Studies in the Canadian high Arctic,
Baffin Bay, and West Greenland report findings that are
markedly different from the overall trends of sea ice
reduction. Since 1970, the climate in West Greenland
has cooled, reflected in both oceanographic and biological
conditions (Hanna and Cappelen, 2003). Contrary
to a reduction of sea ice, Baffin Bay and Davis
Strait display strong significant increasing tends in ice
concentrations and extent, as high as 7.5% per decade
between 1979 and 1996, with comparable increases detected
back to 1953 (Parkinson et al., 1999; Deser et al.,
2000; Parkinson, 2000a,b; Parkinson and Cavalieri,
2002; Stern and Heide-Jørgensen, 2003). Predictions for
the future suggest similar trends, where climate models
projecting sea ice trends over the next 50 years note
Baffin Bay is one of the few areas with increased sea ice
concentrations and sea ice thickness (Sewall and Sloan,
2004).

http://staff.washington.edu/klaidre/docs/LaidreandHJ_2005a.pdf

Did you notice the sentence I bolded?

The authors are saying that you cannot use the overall trends in sea ice to evaluate the consequences for sea life such as narwhales. Instead you have to look at the local trends, e.g. within Baffin Bay.

 

[Malerin]

No, but what does it PROVE?

By itself, nothing. Although it is interesting that, since 1970, West Greenland has been cooling.

 

[Haig]

I don't see what it has to do with climate change. (snip)We know solar variability has short term (over years, maybe occasionally decades) effects on the weather, but we also know it has no long term underlying cumulative effect over longer periods (snip) The effect of a steady increase in CO2 may be smaller over periods of years or decades but it's cumulative

Piers Corbyn, MSc (astrophysics), ARCS FRAS FRMetS, WeatherAction Long Range weather & climate forecasters.

PC says the Suns effects on the Earth are the main drivers of climate change. He says our climate has been cooling in recent years and will continue to cool until, at least, 2030 and maybe a good bit longer.

On C02, he says it is not a significant factor in climate change and is definitely not a driver.

[*]Apparently he has never published his technique. It is impossible to comment on SWT when no one knows what it is.(snip) IMO his predictions seem to be that some bad weather will happen in periods when bad weather is expected. As Pixel42 states - he is predicting weather (local and over years) not climate (global and over decades). So whatever he is doing has nothing to do with this thread.If he is the only reason that you have doubts about AGW then you actually do not have doubts about AGW - you have doubts about weather forecasting.

"Piers Corbyn reveals revolutionary forecast concepts at special conference Oct 28th 2009 Imperial College London" there is more about how his technique works on his site. See my reply to Pixel42.

Also, he talks about a 60-year climate cycle for the USA that he has identified. He's using the various cycles that affect the Sun, the 22-year total sunspot cycle (and others that I can't understand) that have a direct effect on the Earths climate.

The solar wind and the magnetic effects are the means by which the Sun drives our climate and weather, he says.

I obviously have paraphrased him, a bit.

Because we've been over all of this before. There is a lot of history on this topic here on this board.

I haven’t found anything about Piers Corbyn and his methods on this board, can you post the links?

The skill scores were vastly inflated by the fact that forecasting non-occurrences of a "rare" event yields a high success rate. In this case, gales are rare in England in the summer so Summertime forecasts of no gales occurring are almost guaranteed to be correct.

Corbyn issues forecasts of events happening in intervals which are between 3 and 6 days long. Even given this amount of leeway, only 23 of the 41 gales during the study period occurred in an interval that Corbyn had forecast a gale for, and there were 21 intervals for which Corbyn forecast a gale but none occurred.

Thanks for this work. PC claims his SWT has improved since this early validation and, as they understand the science better now, their accuracy improves.

He also claims he has been blocked from publishing papers in peer reviewed publications because he is a AGW sceptic. Do you think that is credible? The Wikipedia piece on him doesn’t do him any favours.

Do you think the bookmakers that refused his bets on the weather, because of his success, would give him a more current validation?

My doubts on AGW continue. PC and his SWT is the only thing that makes sense of these “magnetic ropes” that NASA found stretching from the Sun to the Earth.

Anyone care to make better sense of them?

 

[Reality Check]

"Piers Corbyn reveals revolutionary forecast concepts at special conference Oct 28th 2009 Imperial College London" there is more about how his technique works on his site. See my reply to Pixel42.

That is a confererence.
Can you cite his published paper in hopefully a peer-reviewed journal?

"
My doubts on AGW continue. PC and his SWT is the only thing that makes sense of these “magnetic ropes” that NASA found stretching from the Sun to the Earth.

Anyone care to make better sense of them?

Without his paper published in a astrophysics journal, no one knows what his explanation of the magnetic ropes that NASA found stretching from the Sun to the Earth is.

Perhap you can tell us what how he explains the existence of the magnetic ropes? Does he use magnetohydodynamics?

The better sense of the magnetic ropes are: An interaction between the magnetic fields of the Sun and Earth ans the solar wind causes magnetic flux tubes.

 

[mhaze]

.....he talks about a 60-year climate cycle for the USA that he has identified. He's using the various cycles that affect the Sun, the 22-year total sunspot cycle (and others that I can't understand) that have a direct effect on the Earths climate.

The solar wind and the magnetic effects are the means by which the Sun drives our climate and weather, he says. ....
Anyone care to make better sense of them?

We've certainly discussed those, particularly with respect to the CLOUD experiment going on at CERN.

Corbin may be looking at some other well known aspects of solar influence on long term weather, not sure.

 

[BenBurch]

By itself, nothing. Although it is interesting that, since 1970, West Greenland has been cooling.

Not particularly.

Especially when you see this;

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

"Piers Corbyn reveals revolutionary forecast concepts at special conference Oct 28th 2009 Imperial College London" there is more about how his technique works on his site. See my reply to Pixel42.

I took a brief look at the Weather Action website, and I don't see any discussion of his method. And I can't find anything about this alleged "special conference".

Also, he talks about a 60-year climate cycle for the USA that he has identified. He's using the various cycles that affect the Sun, the 22-year total sunspot cycle (and others that I can't understand) that have a direct effect on the Earths climate.

Yes, there are all sorts of cycles driven by sunspot cycles, ocean cycles (PDO, AMO), etc. How do these explain the last 40 years?

The solar wind and the magnetic effects are the means by which the Sun drives our climate and weather, he says.

What's your point? Without the Sun, we wouldn't have a climate. There is no significant source of energy for driving weather and climate on the Earth besides the Sun. No one disputes that.

He also claims he has been blocked from publishing papers in peer reviewed publications because he is a AGW sceptic. Do you think that is credible? The Wikipedia piece on him doesn’t do him any favours.

Skeptics like Roger Pielke are able to publish.

 

[Reality Check]

He also claims he has been blocked from publishing papers in peer reviewed publications because he is a AGW sceptic. Do you think that is credible? The Wikipedia piece on him doesn’t do him any favours.

That claim is in itself suspicious. There are plenty of AGW sceptics who have published papers in peer-reviewed journals.

The censorship excuse is all too often used by people in all fields who have never submitted their papers or who have had them rejected. The fact is that there are journals out there with less stringent (to be charitable) review standards and so it is usually possible to publish a paper somewhere.

ETA
Just to clarify TellyKNeasuss reply: that is more likely Roger A. Pielke, Jr. rather than his father Roger A. Pielke ("Pielke has a somewhat nuanced position on climate change, which is sometimes taken for skepticism, a label that he explicitly renounces").

 

[Haig]

That is a confererence.
Can you cite his published paper in hopefully a peer-reviewed journal?

Perhap you can tell us what how he explains the existence of the magnetic ropes? Does he use magnetohydodynamics?

Nope. I can only repeat what I said in the last post

"He also claims he has been blocked from publishing papers in peer reviewed publications"

He has hopes that, post climategate, peer to peer reviews will make it easier for scientists, like him, to get published.

I haven't heard his full explanation of the role the magnetic ropes play. I have seen his model of the Sun and Earth connected by ropes and it looks comical.