Ping TNP re gridwatch

[Roger Chapman]

Instead of ramping up on strawmen how about actually answering the question posed above. You huff and you puff but you don't deliver the facts.

[dennis]

Show me one that fits and predicts the rise, and I don't mean the results but an actual model that can be reviewed.

How would I know, they don't tell you what fudge factors they use to get the results, that is the whole point, why should I or anyone believe secret models and data?

Show me the raw data that they use then.

Well show me where to get the raw data, you claimed earlier that its freely available.

They way it works is well understood but the models vary and more importantly the starting conditions vary. There are also various ways to run the models in order to establish how reliable the forecast is depending on the variance of the runs. Then there is the human factor in deciding which forecast to use out of the many produced.

Well its not inaccurate.

[dennis]

Well as you raise it, the satellites show there is more solar energy arriving now than there was when they were first launched. Now how is that dealt with in the secret models you back?

[Roger Chapman]

Where are they. Even point me to some site that claims such an illusive animal.

The Models used by both the Met Office and NASA do. The USA has a very strong freedom of information act so theirs should be available. There is some indication that the Met Office's might be as well - see below.

I asked you what factors should be considered or ignored, not what the weighting was.

> It hasn't helped the deniers cause though, indeed it has rather damage

So you can't.

You need to be able to back up your baseless assertions or lose credibility.

You need to be more explicit about what you mean by starting conditions. AFAIK the starting conditions are the status quo at the time the latest data is received.

Now what is the benefit in actually using inaccurate data when accurate data is held and needed in order to make the best predictions?

[The Natural Philosopher]

And there you go again.

[Roger Chapman]

So you say but where can I find the deniers website that makes that point?

AFAIK the models, or at least their methodology, aren't secret.

[Roger Chapman]

Answer the question.

I see you are still not answering the question.

[The Natural Philosopher]

I am under no obligation to respond to your straw men.

[Roger Chapman]

I think you need to provide a citation for that too.

[Roger Chapman]

snip

What straw man?

You seem to be losing the plot completely.

If you can't answer the question the obvious conclusion is that you were not telling the truth in the first place.

[Martin Brown]

I agree. The peaks are not sharp enough given that power scales as windspeed cubed. I had hoped they might top 4GW recently but they didn't even get up to 3.5 and it looks to me like it is being deliberately pegged back to 3GW by feathering kit.

Another minor request - any chance of swapping round Mr Smiths Nuclear and Gas CCGT meters. It offends my sensibilities to see their capacities not monotonically decreasing from left to right.

As I look now it is astonishingly close to 49.995 Hz out only by the width of a white line.

And at the moment that is only twice the output of wind power which is not at all impressive. We need to have more nuclear operational.

How so? I don't understand the rules by which coal fired are operated.

Agreed. I have a generator in the garage. They drop us offline or rather we expect to get dropped if there is a severe winter storm. Amazingly the local 3-phase mains cable can support a fallen tree - I have a picture of it! The poles didn't enjoy it and are banana shaped, loose in the ground and marked "do not climb".

Hmmm. That could prove embarrassing if there is a sharp cold snap.

Regards, Martin Brown

[The Natural Philosopher]

On the basis that if enough people repeat a statement, it becomes true?

How 'AGW' of you,

Still "A study by Jones, Latham, and Smith using the Hadley Center's General Circulation Model, suggests that warming due to a x2 increase in CO2 could potentially be compensated for by a doubling of the droplet concentration number in low-level marine stratocumulus clouds, accounting for anthropogenic aerosol production, in three regions?off the coasts of the Americas and West Africa. The three regions combined cover approximately 3% of the Earths surface."

play another game. Lets suppose we had never heard of CO2 and greenhouse gases, but we wanted to find a linkage between something that had really taken off since 1950, peaked in 208 or so, and stabilised or fallen away thereafter.

More or less as the temperature has done.

Well we would immediately think of contrails and aircraft, that have followed that exact pattern. We propose 'climate change down to aeroplanes' and we discover that in fact high level contrails have a net global warming effect. So far the science is good.

It doesn't MATTER if they don't do ENOUGH because we simply propose that 'positive feedback - polar bear fart, methane released from perma fart and indeed the emissions of any one we don't like' will explain the discrepancy.

We now have a credible AGW model that fits the facts, is mathematically sound, and has at its core a perfectly correct bit of science.

Can you spot where the error is?

In exactly the same place as AGW of the CO2 persuasion is.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Your 'question'

When did you stop beating your wife? Failure to answer this question clearly will mean that all AGW is immediately disproved

More ad hominems from the resident GreenTroll.

[Martin Brown]

That factoid is just about true for SORCE if you put denier spin on it. But it is deliberately misleading as would be expected of propagandists.

For around 7 years from launch the average solar irradiance was falling steadily during the sunspot minimum. It finally perked up at the start of 2010. Don't take my word for it - here is the SORCE TSI daily data:

really should stop reading "dittohead science" sites and go back to look at the genuine data source. SORCE TSI has been running since Jan

2003 and it is only in the last few month that solar flux has finally topped the value at launch. The average TSI trend was downwards from 1361.7 at launch Jan 2003 to 1360.9 in Dec 2009 before sunspot activity finally started to pick up again at the start of a new solar cycle.

This year has finally seen a bit of activity and decent aurora.

I don't think anyone looking at these TSI data will believe a word that you say in future. Most of the climate models *are* published and some are even available to download and play with on suitable hardware.

Regards, Martin Brown

[The Natural Philosopher]

An example of bad science

Consider this statement

"Scientists in the US have found that low-level cloud cover decreases when the sea surface gets warmer"

this one:

"These clouds vary with the intensity of cosmic rays reaching the atmosphere and act like a shade in the global greenhouse to control temperature. We now have proof of the mechanism or cause and effect for what was previously only a correlation. Sunspots are not the cause but a manifestation of changes in the Sun?s magnetic field that in turn modulates the intensity of cosmic rays reaching the Earth."

(this is a from a rather bad reiteration of Svensmark's theory but it just happened to be the first one I found).

Now what are these two statements saying, and what are they implying?.

The FACTS seem to be, that less cloud at low level occurs at the same time as sea temperatures are noticeably warmer.

Golly you might think, so the sea gets hotter in sunnier years!

And in fact that's what Svensmark says. He is however chasing a different dragon, what causes the clouds to vary year from year?, and thus affect the climate.

Now look at the first quote written by someone with his AGW spectacles on.

First of the assumption that all and any initial sea warming MUST be down to CO2. That's why the oceans are warm! Then after that 'fact' of AGW *dogma* we get the ASSUMPTION that this extra hot sea is going to reduce the clouds..and INCREASE GLOBAL WARMING. Golly. How come the moment the sun strikes the sea all the cloud doesn't burn off completely in a massive positive feedback?

So we have exactly the same fact - that hotter seas and less cloud go together, made into two entirely different conclusions.

In the first, AGW makes seas hot, this leads to less cloud, and that means EVEN MORE GLOBAL WARMING.

In the second we have clouds happen, less clouds make the seas hotter, clouds formation is affected by cosmic rays, ergo cosmic rays drive global warming (as well as CO2) ergo we don't need any scary positive feedback to explain why temperauture rises don't fit CO2 and other greenhouse gas values. And why we have to therefore positive feedback to make AGW work.

The first assumes AGW and makes it scarier. The second doesn't assume AGW, and in fact concludes it is a second order effect - the real temperature variability is being driven by cloud formation, not just CO2. In fact the results fit perfecly with known CO2 and NO EXTRA FUDGED FEEDBACK.

I only posted this to demonstrate how precisely the same FACT can get bent by dogma or people looking to make a case, in to exactly the opposite conclusions.

And both of the people in this real case have been published and peer reviewed and all that paraphernalia.

If you haven't read Svesnsmark, the theory is curious and interesting, and explains a few things AGW does not.and as far as I can tell fits te data - especially historical data - better..the jury is very much still out though.

[dennis]

All factors should be considered, none should be ignored. Now maybe you would like to say which are considered and which are ignored in the model(s) you base your beliefs on.

data sets, things like "The reprocessed files are available from the main data page." I wonder what reprocessing or even processing they do before they publish the data.

All I ask is for the raw data and model being used by you to justify your claims to be available to anyone to verify. Its not exactly asking for the world. Just making it available for review by anyone that wants to.

You load up a model with data and press go. You get different results when you load it with different data. Its a simple concept.

Obviously because there isn't any accurate data to input into the model. There never is any accurate data to input into the model. Think about it and try to understand why, then you may understand how it works and why it is frequently wrong.

[dennis]

You are a denier expert, I don't know any deniers so why don't you tell us where?

So we are told how they work but have no details on how they implement them? Sounds like a good way to introduce bugs and not find them.

[Tim Watts]

Last year, it was pulling just over 60GW for prolonged periods.

[Roger Chapman]

snip

More prevarication.

Since Martin has answered you far more competently than I could I consider this point closed.

[Roger Chapman]

snip

Still prevaricating. Why don't you admit that you haven't really a clue what needs to be considered.

Now why should I give you any hints?