For some reason I’ve been honoured by a burst of comments from Piers “Solar” Corbyn, a man not ashamed to be associated with TGGWS.
PC defends his predictions of the mighty storm surge (without mentionning whether or not he predicted it would turn out to be dull), provides us with his CV (a priviledge indeed, if you click on “CV” at weatheraction you get “You are not authorized to view this resource”). PC claims some scientific pubs but when I search nothing shows up in ISI. And then one on bets.
Some of the later may be interesting:
2007 UK / England Temperatures will not be highest ‘ever’ – We will bet anyone Â£1000 on this. (‘ever’ = historical records)
2007 World Temperatures will not be the highest ‘ever’ (contrary to the expectations of some) – We will bet anyone Â£1000 on this.
Detailed weather forecasting by the SWT is possible 2 years ahead. The SWT holds that all major cyclic /quasi-cyclic events of Earth’s weather – such as El Nino and Stratospheric wind switching (‘Quasi-Biennial Oscillation’) every 28 mths are of solar origin.
New advance: SWT Climate outlook. In the 7yrs up to 2013 World average Temperature in any calendar year will not exceed the 1998 peak levels (95% confidence).
If PC is really offering even odds on the last one, I might take him up. Or is he offering even odds? Presumably if he is really 95% confident, then he ought to offer 20 to 1?
The recent hoax seems to have been taken down – sad. There is a story about it at Reuters and its everywhere else.
I wanted to point out something which no-one else seems to have noticed, which was that the figures for the T and CO2 histories were very obviously faked. They were just straight lines with wiggles drawn on (indeed from my memory the wiggles were all upwards, suggesting that they had been drawn by hand with a pen above a ruler line).
This, and various other features many people have noticed, made the fakery rather too obvious to fool anyone for toooo long. Hopefully someone will have another go at something better. E&E would be an obvious target for a Sokal moment, which might be why they rejected the Schulte piece, perhaps?
A pointer to The Real Truth About the Revelle-Gore Story because I came across refs to this just recently… where?
Oops, sorry, Eli did it ages ago. Good.
Wild excitement, and local at that: A tidal surge in the North Sea has sparked severe flood warnings and evacuations on England’s east coast. We shall see.
[Update: it was a bust -W]
Inel points us to a report by the IPPR, WWF and RSPB claiming that we can cut our carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. My immeadiate reaction is doubt. Comparing their numbers with what I had from a previous post, I don’t see any reason to change my mind.
Inel, rather naughtily to my mind, simply posts the report without offering any comment, which is a cop-out.
Continue reading “80% by 2050?”
A point I had forgotten about the recent Canadell et al paper, which mt’s recent post reminds me of: as he quotes (scroll down to the update):
Ceci suggÃ¨rerait d’aprÃ¨s eux que les feedbacks carbone/climat se produisent plus rapidement que notre comprÃ©hension des phÃ©nomÃ¨nes gouvernant l’absorption des puits ne le laissait penser.
This is indeed what C et al say, and its one possible interpretation. Another, of course, is that since obs show the airbourne fraction going up, and the models say that they should be going down, then… the models are wrong.
And we’re not much better. Some photographic souvenirs of a recent trip to Bruxelles.
From the cathedral of St Michael and St Gudula. A hard-to-believe statue. It looks less rude from other angles. This one shows *two* enormous organs.
Musee des beaux arts. The woman is holding a bar of glowing hot iron; hence the little tray of charcoal in the foreground. Notice the burning witch in the background. See also this charming mural from Bayeaux featuring some hand-chopping legend of which I know nothing.
Did you know that if you type “justice de otton” into google, at the moment my flickr page comes out #1, and this rather more useful one is #2. How odd.
Bruxelles Midi. I don’t suppose I have to demonstrate that we are weirdos, but this should do it.
Remember remember the 5th of November! Gunpowder treason and plot. And so we gathered to burn the heap of junk at the bottom of the garden and set off some fireworks.
At least we did it on the fifth – far too many naughty people did it yesterday. Tut tut.
OK, the Knight et al. paper is here, thanks folks. Clearly they have had some jolly fun dividing the runs up into trees, but the paper is a disappointment to me, as it doesn’t really deal with the main issue, which is the physical plausibility of some of the runs. It *does* talk about “Our findings reinforce the fact that variation of parameters within plausible bounds may have a substantial systematic effect…” but that rather slides over the fact that varying a parameter within a plausible range is *not* the same thing as producing a model with a viable climate. As I reported ages ago, and I’m sure its been said elsewhere, there is good evidence that low values of entraiment are phycially implausible, and those low values give the high CS values, above 9K. Kn et al say: Consistent with this, the highest predicted CSs (>9K) are all for low entcoef runs, associated with high rhcrit and ct and low vf1 (Fig2, supporting Table3) a combination indicative of reduced cloud formation. But what they don’t do is mention the Palmer stuff (maybe its not published?). As I understand it, the tests for a viable model simulation applied to the cp.net runs are very weak, and they seem to be determined not to improve them.
OK, so I missed it, not that I was looking for it. Why did everyone else miss it? Because cp.net is obsolete? Since I don’t have a subs to PNAS I can’t read it except the abstract.
Here is the abstract so you don’t have to follow the link and I show up on google:
In complex spatial models, as used to predict the climate response to greenhouse gas emissions, parameter variation within plausible bounds has major effects on model behavior of interest. Here, we present an unprecedentedly large ensemble of >57,000 climate model runs in which 10 parameters, initial conditions, hardware, and software used to run the model all have been varied. We relate information about the model runs to large-scale model behavior (equilibrium sensitivity of global mean temperature to a doubling of carbon dioxide). We demonstrate that effects of parameter, hardware, and software variation are detectable, complex, and interacting. However, we find most of the effects of parameter variation are caused by a small subset of parameters. Notably, the entrainment coefficient in clouds is associated with 30% of the variation seen in climate sensitivity, although both low and high values can give high climate sensitivity. We demonstrate that the effect of hardware and software is small relative to the effect of parameter variation and, over the wide range of systems tested, may be treated as equivalent to that caused by changes in initial conditions. We discuss the significance of these results in relation to the design and interpretation of climate modeling experiments and large-scale modeling more generally.